Bury St. Edmunds: Medieval Art, Architecture, Archaeology and Economy (The British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions) [1 ed.] 0901286877, 9780901286871

Citation preview

BUR Y ST EDMUNDS

Medieval Art, Architecture,

Archaeology and Economy

BUR Y ST EDMUNDS

Medieval Art, Architecture,

Archaeology and Economy

Edited by

Antonia Gransden

I~ ~~o~1~;n~~:up

LONDON AND NEW VORK

THE BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

CONFERENCE TRANSACTIONS XX

The Association is especially grateful to

The British Academy

Francis Coales Charitable Foundation

The Cromarty Trust

Greene King PLC

Marc Fitch Fund

s. C. and E. M. Morland Charitable Trust

Pembroke College, Cambridge

The Scouloudi Foundation in association with the Institute of Historical Research

for generous grants towards the publication of this volume

Published for The British Archeological Association by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OXI4 4RN 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY roo17

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now

known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any

information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the

publishers.

Notice:

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are

used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Rautledge is an imprint of the Taylar & Francis Group, an infarma business © The British Archaeological Association and contributors 1998 Libraries, universities and ather public institutions may photocopy single articles from these Transactions for the purpose of loan collections, teaching sets, and similar non-commercial uses only ISBN 13: 978-o-90rz86-88-8 (pbk)

ISBN 13: 978-0-901286-87-1 (hbk)

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library

CONTENTS

PAGE

Preface List of Abbreviations Some Manuscript Sources

Vll

IX Xli

The Romanesque Church of Bury St Edmunds Abbey by Eric Fernie Aspects of the Romanesque Church of Bury St Edmunds Abbey in their Regional Context by Stephen Heywood

16

The West Front of the Abbey Church by Philip McAleer

22

The Architectural Setting of the Cult of St Edmund in the Abbey Church I095-I539 by ] ohn Crook

34

A Scientific Examination of the Relics of St Edmund at Arundel Castle by Richard Gem with an Appendix by Tony Waldron

45

The Saint Edmund Cycle in the Crypt at Saint-Denis by Pamela Z. Blum

57

Medieval Metalworking and Bury St Edmunds by Marian Campbell

69

The Planning of the Town of Bury St Edmunds: a Probable Norman Origin by Bernard Gauthiez

81

The Medieval Town of Bury St Edmunds by Margaret Statham

98

The Mint at Bury St Edmunds by Robin Eaglen

I II

St Edmund in Lincolnshire: the Abbey's Lands at Wainfleet and Wrangle by Arthur Owen

I22

Mid-I3th-Century Accounts from Bury St Edmunds Abbey by P. D. A. Harvey

128

The Abbey Woods by Oliver Rackham

139

The Lost Canterbury Prototype of the I rth-Century Bury St Edmunds Psalter by William Noel

I6I

The Production and Artistry of the Bury Bible by T. A. Heslop

172

The Provision of Books for Bury St Edmunds Abbey in the I rth and 12th Centuries by Teresa Webber

186

Some I2th-Century Bindings from the Library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey: preliminary Findings. Appendix, Descriptions ofFour Bindings from the Exhibition Catalogue (below) by ]ennifer M. Sheppard

I94

VI

CONTENTS

Reconstructing the Medieval Library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey: the Lost Catalogue of Henry of Kirkstead by Richard Sharpe

204

The Bury Artists of Harley 2278 and the Origins of Topographical Awareness in English Art by Nicholas Rogers

2I9

Some Manuscripts in Cambridge from Bury St Edmunds Abbey: Exhibition Catalogue by Antonia Gransden

228

PLATES

287

PREFACE

This volume contains papers based on lectures given at the Association's Annual Conference, the 20th in the present series, which was held at Bury St Edmunds, from 16 to 20 April 1994: three specially commissioned articles are also included. The conference took place at Culford School and was attended by some 135 members and guests from Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain and North America, thirteen of whom had been awarded Scholarships by the Association. The Association held a Congress in Suffolk in 1864 and Meetings in 1928 and 1955, but all of these had been centred on Ipswich. There had been excursions to Bury St Edmunds during those three visits to Suffolk, but they had been extremely brief. This conference, therefore, was designed to study in detail the architecture, archaeology, art history and economy of the abbey at Bury St Edmunds and to visit and explore the town and the more important churches in the vicinity. The success of the conference owes much to the extremely interesting programme organised by Or Antonia Gransden, who has also undertaken the editing of this volume. Of the twenty-four lectures delivered at the conference it has been possible to publish seventeen here. We are also greatly indebted to Or Gransden for delivering a paper. Furthermore, in addition to the heavy demands of organising the academic ingredients of the conference, Or Gransden not only arranged for manuscripts from the abbey, now in collections in Cambridge, to be exhibited especially for us to see in Corpus Christi College, Gonville and Caius College and the Cambridge University Library, but also produced a thirty-page Exhibition Catalogue entitled St Edmundsbury and Cambridge. An expanded and annotated version of this Catalogue is included in these Transactions. No one will forget the enormous privilege afforded to the Association of being able to see so many Bury manuscripts, especially the Bury Bible in Corpus Christi College, which was shown to us personally by Or Nigel Wilkins, Fellow Librarian of the College. Visits were made to the ab bey (17 April), guided by Anthony Fleming and Oavid Sherlock, to Mildenhall, Icklingham and Woolpit churches (18 April), guided by Or John Blatchly, Oavid Oymond and Or Pamela Tudor-Craig, to Cambridge (19 April) to see the exhibitions of manuscripts, and to the town of Bury St Edmunds (20 April), where Philip Aitken, Margaret Statham and Carol Rowntree acted as guides. Suffolk County Council and the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History very kindly gave a reception in the Cathedral Refectory on 17 April, at the invitation of Cllr Gerry Kiernan, Chairman of the Libraries and Heritage Committee, Suffolk County Council, and Or J ohn Blatchly, President of the Institute. On 18 April there was a reception in the Manor House Museum, where the Association was generously received by Or J. West of English Heritage, Cllr Spooner, mayor of St Edmundsbury and Cllr Mrs Bone, mayor elect. Throughout the preparation of the conference and during it we were helped considerably by members of the Suffolk Institute, particularly by Or John Blatchly, President, and by local specialists. To all of them a special debt of gratitude is due. Additional thanks are owed also to Miss Ann Hilder, Conference Organiser, and Miss Helen Caton, Conference Secretary, for organising all the domestic and practical details which ensured a smooth-running programme, and to Mr J ohn Humphries, bursar of Culford School, and his staff. The Association is grateful to Corpus Christi College, Gonville and Caius College, Pembroke College and St John's College, Cambridge, for waiving reproduction fees,

Vlll

PREFACE

and to Corpus Christi College, for lending a transparency for the cover illustration free of charge. Mr Graham Maney, W. s. Maney & Son Ltd, and his staff have accommodated with good heart and enthusiasm the many practical difficulties of producing the book. The Transactions will surely stand as an important statement of recent research, and will act as a spring-board for further investigations. Laurence Keen, President December 1994

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbo, Passia

Abbo of Fleury, Passia Sancti Eadmundi, in Three Lives of English Saints, ed. Michael Winterbottom (Toronto 1972), 67-87, 91-92. [Composed 985-87.] Add. MS Additional MS Antiquaries Jaurnal Antiq. J. Archaeal. J. Archaealagical Jaurnal BAACT British Archaealagical Assaciatian Conference Transactions BAR British Archaealagical Report Bishop, 'Notes, l' T. A. M. Bishop, 'Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, Pt I', Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliagraphical Society, 1(1949-53), 43 2-41. Bishop, 'Notes, II' Ibid., II (1954-58), 185-99. BL British Library BM British Museum BN Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris Bod!. Lib. Bodleian Library, Oxford Bury Custamary The Custamary of the Benedictine Abbey of Bury St Edmunds in Suf(alk (fram Harleian MS 1005 in the British Museum), ed. A. Gransden (Henry Bradshaw Society, XCIX, 1973). [Composed sometime between 1234 and 1252.] Bury Chranicle The Chronicle of Bury St Edmunds 1212-13°1, ed. and translated, A. Gransden (Nelson's Medieval Texts, 1964). [Composed fairly contemporaneously from c. 1265 by three successive chronicIers to 13 0 1.] CCR Calendar of Close Rails (1892- )

CPR Calendar of Patent Rails (1891- )

Chapters, ed. Dacuments Illustrating the Activities of the General and Pravincial

Pantin Chapters of the English Black Manks I2I5-I540, ed. W. A. Pantin,

3 vols (Camden Soc., 3rd ser., XLV, XLVII, UV, 1931-37). CUL Cambridge University Library De De Dedicatianibus Altarum, Capeilarum, etc., apud Sancturn Dedicatianibus Edmundum, printed in Bury Custamary (q.v.), II4-22 (Appendix IX). [Composed c. 1140 with additions to 1275.] Domesday Boak, Damesday Baak, ed. John Morris, XXXIV, Suf(alk, ed. Alex Rumble, Suf(olk 2 vols (Chichester 1986). EHR English Histarical Review Election, ed. The Chronicle of the Election of Hugh Abbat of Bury St Edmunds Thomson and Later Bishop of Ely, ed. and translated R. M. Thomson (Oxford 1974). [Composed between c. 1222 and 1229.] Feudal Feudal Documents fram the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, ed. D. C. Douglas, British Academy Records of Social and Economie History , Dacuments VIII (Oxford 1932). Gesta Sacristarum Acts of the Sacrists (from c. I065-c. 1294), printed in Memorials (q.v.), II, 289-96. [Composed in the mid-12th century and continued to c. 1294.] Gilyard-Beer, R. Gilyard-Beer, 'The Eastern Arm of the Abbey Church at Bury St. 'Eastern Arm' Edmunds', PSIA, XXXI, pt 3 (1969),256-62.

x

ABBREVIATIONS

A. Gransden, 'Abbo of Fleury's "Passio Sancti Eadmundi" " Revue Bénédictine, cv (1995),20-78 and pIs I-V. C. F. R. De Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible and the Beginnings

of the Paris Booktrade (Woodbridge 1984).

Herman the Archdeacon, De Miraculis Sancti Eadmundi, printed in

Memorials (q.v.), I, 26-92. [Composed c. IIOO.]

Hills, 'Antiquities' G. M. Hills, 'The Antiquities of Bury St. Edmunds', JBAA, XXI (1865),32-56, 1°4-4°· M. R. James, On the Abbey of St. Edmund at Bury I. the Library Il. James, Abbey the Church, Publication of the Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., octavo ser. VIII (Cambridge 1895). M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the

James, Cat. Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols (Cambridge

Corpus 19°9)·

M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the

James, Cat. Gonville and Library of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, 3 vols (Cam­

Caius bridge 19°7-14).

M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the

James, Cat. Pemb. Library ofPembroke College, Cambridge (Cambridge 1905).

M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the

James, Cat. St John's Library of St. John's College, Cambridge (Cambridge 1913.)

The Chronicle of Joce/in of Brakeland, ed. and translated H. E.

JB Butler (Nelson's Medieval Classics, 1949).

Journalof the British Archaeological Association JBAA Kalendar The Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds and Related Documents, ed. R. H. C. Davis (Camden Soc., 3rd ser., LXXXIV (1954) ). Kauffmann, 'Bury C. M. Kauffmann, 'The Bury Bible (Cam bridge, Corpus Christi BibIe' College, MS. 2)', Journalof the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXIX (1966), 60-8r. Kauffmann, C. M. Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts Io66-II90. A Survey Romanesque of Manuscripts illuminated in the British Isles, ed. J. J. G. Alexander, Manuscripts III (London 1975). Ker, English N. R. Ker, English Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Manuscripts Conquest (Oxford 1960). Ker, Libraries N. R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books (md edn, London 1964). Lobel, Bury St M. D. Lobel, The Borough of Bury St Edmund's: A Study in the Edmund's Government and Deve/opment of a Monastic Town (Oxford 1935). McLachlan, E. P. McLachlan, The Scriptorium of Bury St. Edmunds in the

Scriptorium Twelfth Century (Garland Publishing, Inc., New York-London

1986).

McLachlan, E. P. McLachlan, 'In the Wake of the Bury BibIe: Followers of

'Wake' Master Hugo at Bury St. Edmunds', Journalof the Warburg and

Courtauld Institutes, XLII (1979), 216-24.

Memorials Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey, ed. Thomas Arnold, 3 vols (RS,

1890 -96).

Pinchbeck The Pinchbeck Register relating to the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, Register etc., ed. Francis Hervey, 2 vols (Brighton-London 1925). Gransden, , "Passio" , De Hamel, Glossed Books Hermann

ABBREVIATIONS

Xl

Patrologiae cursus completus. Patres ... Ecclesiae Latiniae, ed. J. P.

Migne, 217 vols (Paris 1844-55. 4 vols of tables 1862-64).

PRO Public Record Office

PSIA Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology

PSIAH Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History

PSIANH Proceedings of the Suffolk lnstitute of Archaeology and Natural

History

Rogers, N. J. Rogers, 'Fitzwilliam Museum MS 3 - 1979: A Bury St 'Fitzwilliam Edmunds Book of Hours and the Origins of the Bury Style', in MuseumMS 3 ­ England in the Fifteenth-Century: Proceedings of the I986 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Daniel Williams (Woodbridge 1987), 229-43. 1979 RS Rons Series Rouse, 'Bostonus R. H. Rouse, 'Bostonus Buriensis and the Author of the Catalogus Buriensis' Scriptorum Ecclesiae', Speculum, XLI (1966),471-99. Richard Sharpe, in English Benedictine Libraries. The Shorter Sharpe, Shorter Catalogues Catalogues, ed. Richard Sharpe, J. P. Carley, R. M. Thomson and A. G. Watson, Corpus of British Library Catalogues, IV (London 1996 ).

Suffolk Record Office, Bury St Edmunds Branch

SRO/B SRO/I Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch

SSMRBSE Suffok Sites and Monuments Record, kept at the Suffolk Archae­

ology Unit, Shire Hall, Bury St Edmunds.

The Archives of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, ed. R. M. Thomson,

Thomson, Suffolk Records Soc., XXI (Woodbridge 1980).

Archives R. M. Thomson, 'The Library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey in the

Thomson, 'Library' Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries', Speculum, XLVII (1972),617-45.

R. M. Thomson, 'Obedientiaries of St Edmund's Abbey', PSIAH,

Thomson, 'Obedientiaries' XXXV, pt 2 (1982),91-103.

VCH Victoria History of the Counties of England. A. B. Whittingham, 'Bury St. Edmunds Abbey. The Plan, Design Whittingham and Development of the Church and Monastic Buildings', Archaeol. j., CVIII (1951), 168-88. William Worcestre, Itineraries, ed. and translated J. H. Harvey William Worcestre (Oxford Medieval Texts, 1969).

PL

SOME MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

Arundel30 Arundel30

Bodley 240

Bodley 297

Douai 553 Harley 1005

British Library, London, MS Additional 14848, the Register of Abbot William Curteys (1429-46), Part 1. References below are to the modern foliation. College of Arms, London, MS Arundel 30, the most complete copy, late 13th century, of the Bury Chronicle (q.v.). The flyleaves contain inscriptions copied from the windows, hangings and elsewhere in the abbey church; these are printed in James, Abbey (q.v.), 186-203. Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Bodley 240, a massive collection of Saints' Lives copied at Bury mainly in 1376, comprising Part II of the Historia Aurea by J ohn of Tynemouth, monk of St Albans. The text is abbreviated and interpolated with much material relating to St Edmund and Bury. The latter material is described and printed in Nova Legenda Anglie, ed. C. Horstmann, 2 vols (Oxford 1901), I, lvii-lxv; II, 538-688. Extracts are in Memorials (q.v.), II, 362-68, III, 318 -4 8. Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Bodley 297, the copy of the chronicle of J ohn of Worcester (often referred to as 'Marianus Scotus', one of John's main sourees) made at Bury c. II35. It has many interpola­ tions and marginal additions relating to the abbey's history; many of them are printed in Memorials (q.v.), I, 340-56. Bibliothèque de la Ville, Douai, MS 553, the Customary of the abbey's Kitchener, compiled by Andrew Aston, Kitchener, shortly after 1425. Extracts printed in James, Abbey (q.v.), 180-82. British Library, London, MS Harley 1005, the 'White Book', a collection of the abbey's customs, historical pieces, etc., 13th-14th centuries. It includes the Bury Customary (q.v.), De Dedicationibus (q.v.), the Gesta Sacristarum (q.v.), and JB (q.v.).

The Romanesque Church of Bury St Edmunds

Abbey

By E. C. Fernie The abbey church which was begun by Abbat Baldwin in the Io8os and canstructed during the nth century can be reconstructed in mast af its aspects, despite the ruinaus state in which it survives. It belangs ta the traditian af great Narman pilgrimage churches af the decades fallawing the Canquest, madelled in particular an Walkelin's church at Winchester. As such, alang with anly a handful af churches af the periad throughaut western Europe, it rivals the scale af the Canstantinian basilicas af Early Christian Rame. The ruins alsa pravide sufficient dimensians ta in di ca te that the building was laid aut, apparently like mast af the largest Narman churches in England, using the propartian af ane ta the square roat af twa. While the analysis af architectural prapartians requires a degree af regularity, ane af the mast striking features af the plan is the displacement ta the narth, maving west, af the narth arcade wal! af the nave, which results in the nave and ais les being much wider than the three correspanding vessels in the eastern arm. This distartian could be the result af a blunder an the partaf a builder uncertain haw ta set aut a design with a western arm which is wider than the eastern, but when the angled wall is taken in conjunctian with the addity af the large compaund pier in the presbytery next ta the crassing pier, it pravides the basis far a mare far-reaching passibility. That is, that the church was enlarged in bath width and length at the east side af the crassing, and that this was dane, shartly after the translatian in I095, in arder ta make Bury substantially larger than the rival church at Narwich begun in I096 and built an lines very similar ta thase already established in the eastern arm afBury. Finally, it is propased that the same type af geametrical system was used in the setting aut af the tawn as that used far the church. It is fitting that the ruins of the church of Bury St Edmunds Abbey belong almost exclusively to the great Romanesque structure erected by Abbot Baldwin and his successors in the late lIth and l2th centuries, since this building forms the core of the architectural history of the site, replacing the previous churches of the abbey and in turn providing the matrix for all the additions of the l3th to l6th centuries. The church consisted of a crypt of four bays with an ambulatory and three radiating chapels, and an eastern arm above extending one bay further to the west. The transept had an eastern aisle and arms of five bays each, the nave of twelve bays was wider than the eastern arm, and the western massif, which survives to a much greater extent than anything to the east, had large chapels on two levels and an octagon flanking each side aisle to north and south. St James's tower straddles the abbey wall west of the façade on the main axis of the church, and is the only feature of this period on the site to survive intact (Figs l and 2, PIs I and lIlA).! After offering a précis of the information available for dating the structure and a brief account of its architectural sources, the paper examines the evidence for the planning and laying out of the building, paying particular attention to its irregularities.

2

CHURCH OF BURY ST EDMUNDS ABBEY

Bury St Edmunds abbey: plan of remains of the church begun in the I080s. All dimensions taken on site

FIG. 1.

FIG. 2. Bury St Edmunds abbey: reconstructed schematic plan with dimensions of surviving parts

ERIC FERNIE

FIG. 4.

FIG. 3.

Winchester, cathedral, plan ofWalkelin's church, started 1079

3

Bury St Edmunds abbey: plan laid over Old

St Peter's, Rome, to same scale

4

CHURCH OF BUR Y ST EDMUNDS ABBEY

CHRONOLOGY

After its founding in the 7th century the single most important factor in the history of the abbey was its acquisition, some time in the first half of the Ioth century, of a body believed to be that of Edmund, king of the East Angles, who was martyred by the Vikings in 869/70. Almost everything else follows from this. In 945 a namesake of the martyr, Edmund, king of England 939-46, donated the town of Beodricsworth to the church of St Edmund, making it one of the richest in the country. Then in 1020 Canute, in an act of expiation for his Viking ancestors' murder of St Edmund, his royal predecessor, sanctioned the replacement of the community of secular priests which served St Edmund's church with Benedictine monks, and the building of a new church for the monastery, or at least a large extension to the old one. 2 After the Conquest Herfast, the bishop of East Anglia, having moved his see from North Elmham to Thetford near Bury, attempted to gain control of the abbey, but Baldwin (abbot 1065-97) successfully resisted his incursions to the ex tent that in 1081 the king confirmed the freedom of the abbey from episcopal control. After this ruling Baldwin increased the number of monks from twenty to eighty and on the advice of the king began to build a new church. In I095 the body of St Edmund was translated into this new Romanesque structure, suggesting that at least the crypt and probably the whoIe of the eastern arm was up and usabie by this date. The ceremony was performed by Walkelin, bishop of Winchester, and Ralph Flambard, the then royal chaplain. The bishop of East Anglia, Herbert de Losinga, who had meanwhile moved the see to Norwich, was not invited. 3 Work continued under Abbot Robert (II02-07) who was responsible for the construction of the claustral buildings, and Godfrey, who was sacrist until II2I, bought a great bell, which might suggest that the crossing tower was ready for it. In the time of Abbot Anselm (1121-48) the 'altar of the Holy Cross behind the choir' was dedicated (that is, behind the choir looking from the east, hence in the navel, the walls around the forecourt were built, including the tower of St J ames on the axis of the church, and bronze doors were made for the façade by Master Hugo. Before his death in 1142 J ohn, bishop of Rochester, dedicated the 'porticus of St Faith over the porticus of St Denis', that is, one of the upper chapels off the north arm of the western massif, suggesting that the west end of the nave had advanced to the level of the clerestory. Finally Abbot Samson (II82-12II) completed the west front, including the central and flanking towers. The major part of the Romanesque church was therefore erected in the sixty years between 1081 and II42. ARCHITECTURAL SOURCES

Baldwin's church is an example of the Norman policy of impressing through scale and the quality of design and materiais. The roots of the type of building to which Bury belongs can be traced to Normandy and elsewhere in France befare the Conquest, and to Norman buildings in England after it. Thus the main element of the east end of the plan, the ambulatory with radiating chapels, occurs at Rouen Cathedral, begun in 1030, Notre-Dame at Jumièges of I037ff., Battle Abbey of I07 1ff. , St Augustine's at Canterbury of I072ff., and Walkelin's cathedra I at Winchester of I079ff. (Fig. 3). The eastern aisle of the transept can be explained as a reduced version of the fully aisled transept of Winchester. The ambulatory and the transept aisle are both features common in churches designed to accommodate large numbers of pilgrims, as would be

ERIC FERNIE

5

TABLE I

Total internallengths of the longest churches of their periad, of the second half of the I Ith century in Normandy, England, the German Empire, France and Early Christian Rome, arranged in order of increasing size. Caen, St-Etienne Canterbury Cathedral 1070 Westminster Abbey Canterbury St Augustine's St Albans Abbey Durham Cathedral Ely Cathedral Speyer Cathedral Norwich Cathedral Rome, St Peter's Canterbury Cathedral 1096 Bury St Edmund's Abbey Winchester Cathedral Cluny Abbey

c. c. c. c. c.

84.00 m 84.00 m 100.00 m 102.00 m 114.00 m II7.00 m c. lI8.00 m 128.61 m 132.00 m 132.77 m 133.00 m 148.57 m c. 157.00 m 172.27 m

276 276 328 335 374 384 387 422 433 436 436 485 SI5 565

ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft

expected at Bury, but it is still unclear whether they were selected because of the function they performed or the form they provided. 4 The church of Bury Abbey is a giant of a building. Thus the transept, which is over 65 m (213 ft) long, could accommodate an entire church the size of that at CastIe Acre Priory, for example, while its eastern arm and transept arms are unique in Norman England in having five bays each. As a whole it is on the same scale as Winchester, which puts it in a class with only two or three other medieval buildings earl ier than the 14th century, such as the imperial cathedralof Speyer begun in 1030 and the abbey at Cluny begun in 1088, and therefore, of course, also with the 4th-century basilicas of Rome such as St Peter's, built by Constantine as structures befitting the patronage of the first Christian emperor (see Fig. 4 and Table I). THE DIMENSIONS AND PLANNING OF THE CHURCH

Despite the ruined state of the building and the almost complete robbing of the ashlar facing there are three important points at which it is possible to obtain accurate measurements (St James's tower, the north, south and west walls of the crypt, and the north and south walls of the nave aisles as represented in the western massif) and others which establish the centres of most of the walls (Fig. 2).5 The dimensions suggest the use of a small number of lengths related by the proportion of one to the square root of two, or the side of a square to its diagonal (see Fig. 5).6 The only part retaining all its ashlar is St James's tower. Despite its construction in the I120S, weil into the building programme, it is therefore a good place to begin the study of the plan. On the west face the central section consisting of the doorway and its orders is 5.86 m (19 ft 3 in.) wide between the buttresses, and the flanking sections 2.42 mand 2.46 m (7 ft II in. and 8 ft I in.) wide. 5.86 m (19 ft 3 in.) multiplied by root­ 2 generates 2.43 m (8 ft) (that is, if the central section is the side of a square then the central section plus one flanking section equals the diagonal). Each flanking area contains a buttress which is 1.72 m (5 ft 8 in.) broad, and 1.72 m is 2.4 m divided by root-2 (that is, if the flanking section equals the diagonal then the buttress width equals

6

CHURCH OF BURY ST EDMUNDS ABBEY

Bury St Edmunds abbey: diagrams of the root-2 systems A. west face of St James's tower B. transept arms, east-west width c. nave widths D. west front

FIG . 5.

the side of the square). The tower therefore establishes the presence of this proportion at Bury (see Figs 6, 7 and SA). The total width of each side of the tower is IO.74 m (35 ft 3 in.) . The rubble faces of the side walis in the crypt retain much of their plaster, so that the interior width can be established as 21.5 m (70 ft 6 in.) at the chord of the apse and 21.6 m (70 ft 10 in.) at the western end, or almost exactly twice the 10.74 m (35 ft 3 in.) side of St James's tower. The distance between the chord of the apse and the centre of the presbytery pier marking the western end of the crypt is also 21.5 m (70 ft 6 in.) in the north aisle and 21.6 m (70 ft 10 in.) in the south aisie, suggesting that the area was intended to form a square at church level. Since the two arms of the transept are of different lengths their dimensions are presumably unreliable. The east-west widths are more consistent, but because the ashlar remains are so sparse the dimensions cannot be exact. With this proviso it appears to be the case that the width of the main vessel varies between IO.7 m (about 35 ft) and 10.8 m (35 ft 5 in.), and may therefore have been intended as the 10.74 m

ERIC FERNIE

FIG. 6.

Bury St Edmunds abbey: St J ames's tower, elevation

FIG.7.

7

Bury St Edmunds abbey: St James's tower, plan

(35 ft 3 in.) side of St J ames's tower. The aisle is about 7.6 m (just under 25 ft) wide, which is rO.74 m (35 ft 3 in.) divided by root-2, making the tataI width of the transept a little over r8.3 m (60 ft) (Figs 2 and 5B). The overall width of the nave and aisles, which can be determined in the western massif, is between 25.9 m (85 ft) and 26 m (85 ft 4 in.), which is the overall width of the transept multiplied by root-2; that is, 18.33 m times root-2 equals 25.92 m (60 ft 2 in. and 85 ft 2 in.). Many large Anglo-Norman churches have the overall width of nave and aisles divided as r:root-2:1 with the root-2 element equaling the interior width of the nave. 7 A width of 25.9 m (85 ft I in.) divided as l:root-2:1 produces a nave width of 10.74 m (35 ft 3 in.), which is the same as the width of the main vessel in the transept. Since it is also the width of St James's tower a nave of this width would have the intern al faces of its arcade walls aligned with the external faces of St James's tower. The flanking sections will each be 7.59 m (24 ft I I in.) wide (that is, the length generated by r8.33 m multiplied by root-2 to produce 25.92 m (60 ft 2 in. plus 25 ft equals 85 ft 2 in.). The length of 7.59 m (24 ft I I in.) divided by root-2 equals 5.36 m (17 ft 7 in.) for the width of the aisIe, leaving 2.22 m (7 ft 3 in.) for the thickness of the arcade wall, while the thickness of the arcade wall measured at the north-east pier of the crossing is 2.2 m (7 ft 2 in.) (see Fig. 5C). (The width of the aisIe, like the internal width of the nave, can na langer be independently determined at Bury.) The length of

8

CHURCH OF BURY ST EDMUNDS ABBEY

the nave from the western side of the transept to the eastern face of the western massif is about 77.7 m (255 ft), which is 25.9 m (85 ft) multiplied by three. From the west end of the nave to the interior of the façade is about 12.95 m (42 ft 6 in.) which is half of 25.9 m (85 ft) and the same as the width of the nave between wall centres, creating a square bay and possibly a crossing at the centre of the massif. The extant southern arm (Fig. 5D) ends in an octagon with internal widths of 7.3 m east-west, 7.9 m north-south, and 7.7 mand 7.5 m, giving an average of 7.6 m, the figure apparently used in the flanking sections of the transept and nave (24 ft, 25 ft I I in., 25 ft 3 in., 24 ft 7 in., average just under 25 ft). Arthur Whittingham has suggested that the octagons were added in the time of Samson around the year 1200 and that hence they do not belong to the original design, but against this Philip McAleer has observed that no building break is evident between the central part of the façade and the surviving octagon (see pI. VIA).8 IRREGULARITIES IN THE LAYOUT

There are two striking irregularities in the layout of the building, both of them centred on the junction between the presbytery and the north-east corner of the crossing. The likely explanation for these oddities takes us far beyond the minutiae of building procedures. The first irregularity is the line of the north arcade wall which departs northwards from the axis of the church by an angle of some three degrees, as is evident in figure 1. The angle starts to the west of the westernmost pier of the presbytery and runs through the north-east and north-west crossing piers into the north wall of the nave, where it is paralleled in the remains of the north aisle wall, so that the width of the nave and aisles at their east end next to the transept is about 25 m (82 ft), whereas at the west end, in the western massif, it is over 25.9 m (85 ft). The south-east and south-west crossing pi ers by contrast line up exactly both with the south arcade wall in the crypt and the southern respond on the interior of the façade. The new alignment begins with the shifting of the axis of the western pier of the presbytery .42 m (I ft 4 in.) north to that of the north-east crossing pier (Fig. 8, PI. II). The core of the crossing pier is also considerably thicker than that of the pier to the east, 2.2 m against 1.87 m (7 ft 2 in. against 6 ft 2 in.). It is of course normal for a crossing pier to be more massive than an arcade pier as it forms part of the support of the crossing tower, but this is usually achieved by means of additions to the core while maintaining the thickness of the walI. The thickening of the wall is entirely taken up on the aisle side of the pier rather than the presbytery side, so that the line of the presbytery wall would have been maintained in order to disguise what would otherwise have been an unsightly change in the plane of the wall surface. The wall was built at an angle because, as has already been noted, the nave and aisles were designed to be some 4.6 m (almost 15 ft) wider than the eastern arm, nearly 26 m (over 85 ft) as opposed to about 21.5 m (70 ft 6 in.). In a properly laid out church with a western arm wider than its eastern arm the walls of the nave and aisles would be set further from the axis than the walls of the eastern arm (Fig. 9). Because at Bury the transept has the width of the nave rather than the prebytery, the change from one width to the other would have occurred at the junction between the west end of the presbytery and the east side of the crossing. If the original plan was of this highly unusual kind, then it is possi bie that the builder did not understand its complexity intended by the designer and laid it out incorrectly at

ERIC FERNIE

9

Bury St Edmunds abbey: western pier of presbytery and north­ east pier of crossing FIG. 8.

PRESBVTERY

CROSSING

the transition between the east and west parts, making the south wall straight from one end of the church to the other as it would be in most layouts, and then having to shift the north wall outwards twice as far as intended. Ir might be suggested that the error in laying out could have been caused by the presence of the previous church of the time of Canute, which remained standing just to the north of the presbytery umil I095. This, ho wever, is unlikely. At the translation of St Edmund in I095 his sarcophagus is described as being brought out of the south door of the aId church,9 which means that the south wall of the structure must have lain north of the north aisle wall of the presbytery, placing it at least 6 m (20 ft) away from the westernmost pier of the presbytery. Equally, the presence of the old church would not explain the erroneous straight laying out of the south wall of the arcade. 1O The question is, then, if this irregularity is not the result of a blunder, is it due to a change in plan from a church with a main body of nave and aisles 2I.5 m (70 ft 6 in.)

10

CHURCH OF BURY ST EDMUNDS ABBEY FIG. 9. Diagramatic plan of a church with an eastern arm narrower than the western

wide to one nearer 26 m (85ft 4 in.)? This is almost certainly the reason, but in order to set out the argument in support it is necessary to examine the second irregularity. This is not so much an irregularity as an arrangement which is so unusual that it strongly suggests a change of plan. The slight size of the remains of the piers in the crypt makes it likely that the piers of the arcade at the main level of the church above were also restricted in size; that is, certainly less massive than the compound pier at the west end of the presbytery, that standing on solid ground just to the west of the crypt, next to the north-east crossing pier. An example of this arrangement, with columnar or minor piers in the east arm ex cept for a compound pier next to the crossing pier, occurs at the cathedralof Noyon (c. II50ff.), but there the compound pier supports one corner of a tower set into the corner between the presbytery and the transept, a feature for which there is no evidence at Bury (Fig. 10). This suggests that the westernmost pier of the presbytery was originally intended to be the crossing pier, a possibility supported by the fact that it is very similar in size, parts and arrangement to the crossing piers of Norwich Cathedral, begun in 1°96 (Figs 8 and II). If the present crossing piers at Bury represent a change of plan and a new crossing, then the original presbytery has been lengthened and an aisle added to the east wall of the transept. This suggestion finds support in the overall east-west Iength of the church and its relationship to the near standard formula for the laying out of large Anglo­ Norman churches, namely that the length of the nave times root-2 generates the remaining Iength to the chord of the main apse (that is, if the length of the nave is taken as the side of a square then the length of the nave plus the Iength up to the chord will

ERIC FERNIE

II

FIG. Ia. Noyon, cathedral, plan of crossing, c. IISO

Norwich, cathedral, plan of east-west responds of crossmg pier

FIG. I!.

equal the diagonal). This is not the case at Bury. Table 2 provides the dimensions of a number of buildings built earlier than Bury which follow this rule, and those of Bury which indicate that it does not. However, with the 7.6 m (25 ft) width of the inserted presbytery bay removed Bury does follow the formula: the present length of the church to the chord is Il7.6 m, which minus 7.6 m equals IlO m (385 ft 10 in. minus 25 ft equals 360 ft 10 in.), and the nave length of 77.7 m (255 ft) multiplied by roOt-2 equals 109.88 m (360 ft 6 in.). If it is accepted that there was a change of plan, then the next task is to establish the reason for it. Whittingham, in an uncharacteristically loose argument, suggested that the extra bay was needed to provide room for steps into the crypt. l l While al most every kind of error in designing and constructing can be found in medieval buildings, this would be one of the most crass, particularly as aisleless transepts we re easily combined with entrances to crypts, albeit on a less grand scale, as at St Augustine's in Canterbury. A more likely explanation is that the enlargements in both length and width are the result of rivalry with Norwich, as follows. Bury was begun in the 1080s and its east arm completed in 1095. This east arm was closely followed at Norwich, begun in 1096 in direct competition with Bury: in its ambulatory, three radiating chapels, quadrant buttresses, square arrangement of the straight part of the presbytery, with a side of

12

CHURCH OF BURY ST EDMUNDS ABBEY TABLE2

Proportions of nave length and eastern arm of large Norman churches in England, up to the time of Baldwin's construction of Bury St Edmund's Abbey Column r: Length of western arm Column 2: Western arm multiplied by root-2 Column 3: Length from west end of western arm to chord of apse

xh=

(I)

Westminster Abbey Canterbury Cathedral 1070 Canterbury St Augustines Winches ter Cathedral Bury St Edmund's Abbey

61.76 56.r6 57.65 81.00 77.70

m m m m m

Westminster Abbey Canterbury Cathedral 1070 Canterbury St Augustines Winchester Cathedral Bury St Edmund's Abbey

202' 18 4' r89' 26 5' 255'

87.35 79.42 81.54 II4.55 109.88

xh=

(r) 7 3 2 9

(2)

(3) m m m m m

(2) 286' 6 260' 7 267' 5 375'10 360' 6

87.35 m 79.60 m 81.58 m 114.60 m II7.57 m (3) 286' 261' 267' 37 6 ' 385'

7 2 8 9

22 m (72 ft 2 in.) versus one of 21.5 m (70 ft 6 in.), and compound piers. 12 Bury was then enlarged to make it grander than its copy at Norwich, with a nave and aisles of 25.9 m (85 ft) rather than Norwich's 22 m (72 ft 2 in.), arcade walls 2.2 m (7 ft 2 in.) rather than 1.87 m (6 ft 2 in.) thick, and an aisled transept rather than an aisleless ane. This enlargement can of course be seen as an expression of Baldwin's success in exploiting the cult of St Edmund in order to raise the necessary funds. 13 THE TaWN

It is possible and indeed likely that the systems used for laying out churches were also applied ta the areas around them, but in most cases the evidence is too tenuous to warrant investigation. Bury is an exception to this rule. The regularity of its street plan makes it clear that the town was laid out geometrically and probably in conjunction with the abbey church, since the axes of church and town are the same, with Churchgate Street aligned with the centre of St James's tower, and the blocks subdivided by the same geometrical proportion (Fig. 12 and PI. IIIA).14 The main east-west dimension is approximately 163 m (535 ft), as from the wall of the abbey up Churchgate St reet to the middle of Hatter Street and from there to the west side of Guildhall Street. The placing of the nrst point in the middle of the raad and second at the far side can be justined by the fact that the nrst marks a cross-roads and the second a T-junction. Both of these 163 m (535 ft) sections are divided in two, by BrideweIl Lane and Whiting St reet respectively, and the two lengths in each can be related as one to roOt-2. That is, from the west side of Guildhall Street to the centre of Whiting Street is about 67.5 m (over 221 ft) and from there to the centre of Hatter Street is about 95.5 m (over 313 ft). 67.5 m times root-2 equals 95.46 m, and 67.5 m plus 95.46 m equals 162.96 m (221 ft 5 in. times root-2 equals JI3 ft 2 in., and 221 ft 5 in.

ERIC FERNIE

FIG. 12.

13

Bury St Edmunds: plan of town with dimensions

plus 313 ft 2 in. equals 534 ft 7 in.). On the north-south axis the streets are much less regularly laid out, or their alignments have survived less weil, but the distance north from the centre of Churchgate Street to that of Abbeygate Street is the standard 163 m (535 ft), and the same di stance runs north again to the edge of the square in front of Moyses Hall. The di stance south from Churchgate Street to College Lane is about II5 m (377 ft) while 163 m (535 ft) divided by root-2 equals II5.26 m (378 ft), and from College Lane to Westgate Street is also, approximately, 163 m (535 ft)Y The source of the type of plan may lie in the traditions of town planning in Normandy, which can be traced back to the laying out of Rouen in the early Ioth

12

CHURCH OF BURY ST EDMUNDS ABBEY

century. The Alfredian burghs of the early Ioth century at Wallingford, Wareham and Winchester indicate the existence of a parallel Anglo-Saxon tradition. 16 CONCLUSION

In the Norman period as before, Bury St Edmunds Abbey was a powerful focus for politica I and social forces, reflecting the success of its officers in battles over their administrative freedom and involving the status of the saint, relations with the king, and competition with the bishops of East Anglia. These factors are evident in the building, not only in its scale, but, if the argument presented here is correct, even in the disruption of details of its masonry.

REFERENCES I. This paper deals with material which is closely related to a number of other contributions in this volume, namely those on the shrine, the regional context of the architecture of the abbey church, the façade, and the plan of the town. I am very grateful to the authors of these papers, John Crook, Stephen Heywood, Philip McAl eer and Bernard Gauthiez, for discussions of the problems raised by the building, and for letting me see drafts of their papers before the conference. I would also like to record my indebtedness to Antonia Gransden and Hugh McCague for a number of suggestions which have helped the clarity and accuracy of the text. 2. A full account of the documentation and a detailed reconstruction of the fabric will be found in Whittingham, 'Bury St Edmunds' (1951), summarized in a pamphlet published by the Department of the Environment in 1971 (below n. 8), to which should be added R. Gilyard-Beer's report of the excavations of 1955; idem, 'Eastern Arm'. The documentary evidence comes from copious annais, presented along with other manuscript sources in James, Abbey. 3. William's charter of 1081 is discussed and printed in Feudal Documents, xxxii-iv, 51-55. See also, with further references, A. Gransden, 'Baldwin, Abbot of Bury St Edmunds, ID65-97', Proceedings of the Battle Abbey Conference, iv (1981),69-72 and nno The earliest account of the consecration of 1095 is that of 'Hermann the archdeacon', written in c. IIOO, and printed Hermann, 84-9I. 4. For Winchester see E. Fernie, 'The grid system and the design of the Norman cathedra\', Medieval Art and Architecture at Winchester Cathedral (BAA CT 1980), 1983, 13-19. 5. The best measured drawings of the site are those prepared by the Department of the Environment in 1972, and of the town the 1:500 series prepared by the Borough Council. All measurements up to 40 m (130 ft) used in this paper I have taken myself, checked against the Department's plans at a scale of 1:100. I would like to record my thanks to the Department, the Council and the occupiers of the dwellings in the western massif for allowing me access to both the site and the documents. I am also indebted to Stephen Heywood for his help in taking the measurements and to Colin Shewring for drawing figures 5, 7, 8, 9, I I and 12, while the late Don Johnson was responsible for figures I, 3 and 4. Figure 2 is from Whittingham, 1971, and figure 6 from V. Rupprich-Robert, L'architecture Normnade aux XI' et XlI' siècles (Paris 1884-89), pI. CXLIII. 6. For more on roOt-2 see Peter Kidson, Systems of Measurement and Proportion in Early Medieval Architecture, 2 vols, PhD (London 1956), and E. Fernie, in the BAA CT volumes for Ely (1979), Canterbury (1982) and Winchester (1983). 7. See, for example, E. C. Fernie, An Architectural History ofNorwich Cathedral (Oxford University Press), 1993,94 (Fig. 27b), 96. 8. A. B. Whittingham, Bury St Edmund's Abbey, Suffolk (London 1971), 19, and J. Philip McAleer, 'Le problème du transept occidental en Grande-Bretagne', Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, XXXIV (1991), 352. Whittingham, 'Bury St Edmund's Abbey' (1951), 172, estimates the external width of the whole façade as 246 ft, or 75 m. 9. See chapter 47 of 'Hermann's' account'; Hermann, 89: ' ... ut in exitu meridiani hostii praedictae veteris ecclesiae .. .' ID. It has been suggested that the misalignment of the two walls of the nave could be due to the alignment of a proposed Anglo-Saxon road which may have run along the line of the façade (see Bernard Gauthiez, 'The Plan of the Town of Bury St Edmunds: a probable Norman Origin', below, p. 93, and the sourees

ERIC FERNIE

Ir.

12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

15

cited). While such a road alignment might be responsible for the angle of the façade there does not seem to be any reason to connect it to the clear evidence for re-alignment and widening which exists at the north-east pier of the crossing, a feature which is unlikely ro have been affected by a roadway at the west end of the church. Whittingham,I70. On compound piers in East Anglia see Bridget Cherry, 'Romanesque Architecture in Eastern England, JBAA, CXXXI (1978), 1-29, and on Norwich Cathedral, E. Fernie, An Architectural History of Norwich Cathedral (Oxford 1993). See A. Gransden, 'The alleged incorruption of the body of St Edmund, king and martyr', Antiq. J., LXXIV (1994),142-44 and n. 80. M. Lobel, The Borough of Bury St Edmunds (1935), 8: grid plan 'probably by Baldwin'; see also J. Smith, 'A Note on the Origin of the Town-plan of Bury St Edmunds', Archae J., CVIII (1951), 162. Domesday records that 342 houses were built by 1086, but it is not certain th at these formed part of the new town or the old. See M. Beresford, New Towns of the Middle Ages (London 1967), 333-34. Philip Crummy, 'The System of Measurement Used in Town Planning from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Centuries', in Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, ed. Sonia Chadwick Hawkes, David Brown and James Campbell, BAR, 72, pt i (1979), 160-61, has identified the length of the east-west blocks as 32 poles of I6! feet each, or 528 ft (160.9 m). This may well have been the unit used, especially if Crummy's 528 ft (160.9 m) measurement proves to be more accurate than the 163 m (535 ft) one offered here, but his lengths in poles fit much less well into the subdivisions of the blocks. While Whiting St, as indicated in the text, divides the distance between Hatter St and Guildhall into lengths which are related closely to one another by roOt-2, in poles on the other hand, from Guildhall St to Whiting St is one and a half poles short of 16 poles and from Whiting St to Hatter St is one po Ie over 16 poles. In addition the first measure includes the widths of both the streets flanking the block while the second excludes them. See Bernard Gauthiez, 'The Plan of the Town of Bury St Edmunds: a probable Norman Origin', below, pp. 81-83, and idem, 'Le ré-occupation planifiée de la Cité de Rouen au haut Moyen Age', Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology at Rouen, BAA CT, XII (1993), 12-19. Tony Baggs has kindly drawn to my attention the similarity of the relationship between the abbey and town at Bury to that at Peterborough.

Aspects of the Romanesque Church of Bury St

Edmunds Abbey in their Regional Context

By Stephen Heywood

The fragmentary remains of the abbey church of Bury St Edmunds leave just enough evidence to reconstruct the main lines of the building. The tower of St James, immediately to the west of the church, on its axis, is the only near complete Romanesque building on the site. This paper wiU brief/y enumerate the surviving elements of the church, apart from the western transept which is the subject of the article by McAleer. This will be followed by more detailed discussion of the farm of the principal crypt piers and the segmental quadrant pilasters to the radiating chapels. FinaUy, in the context of the rivalry which existed between the abbot of Bury and the bishop of East Anglia, a comparison is made with the eastern arm of Narwich Cathedral which prapases a passible explanation far the early change af plan af the axial chapel at N orwich. The paper pravides further evidence of the palitical significance af majar churches and demanstrates the immediacy af the transmissian af ideas in architecture during the late eleventh century.

The plan type of the abbey church can now be easily identified as having a five-bay eastern arm with ambulatory and radiating chapels, four bays of which are raised over a crypt. 1 The transepts arms each had two apsidal chapels and in addition, as aresult of a change of plan after the completion of the eastern arm in 1095, eastern aisles. 2 The crossing was surmounted with a tower, the nave was exceptionally long and the building ended with a western transept which had two-storey apsidal chapels, a massive central tower and octagonal end towers (Fig. I of Fernie's article). Two crossing piers retain some of their dressings and the north-east pier has evidence of a roll-moulded eastern crossing arch (PI. IIIB). The westernmost presbytery pier on the north side retains its base mouldings (Fig. I, E. PI. IIB). The crypt was divided into five groin-vaulted aisles (Fernie's Fig. I and PI. IA). One almost complete respond remains on the north side and fairly substantial fragments of the ambulatory vaults survive. The original windows to the aisles were single-splayed as can be seen on the north side and the radiating chapels had pairs of shallow pilasters and double-splayed windows if the one surviving imprint is sufficient evidence. The elevations of the church were of a standard three-storey type with gallery and clerestory wall passage. The remains of this arrangement is most clearly seen on the east side of the surviving north-east crossing pier (PI. IIIB). The transept side chapels were of two storeys and the radiating chapels also of at least two. The base of one circular pier survives in the north transept. The rubble stumps of most of the other piers leave no visible evidence of their original form. However, given the unvarying predilection in the region for alternating supports, it is safe to assume that the nave arcade pi ers had a regular alternating system of square and circular forms. 3

STEPHEN HEYWOOD

FIG . 1.

17

Ground plan of crypt and transepts based on Gilyard Beer's plan with adjustmems

THE CRYPT

The normal source quoted for the Bury design is St Augustine's Abbey at Canterbury which is very plausible. 4 The three radiating chapels and the five-aisle crypt arrangement are a good match and, as the building which housed the relics of the missionary of the English, a most suitable model. A closer look at the Bury crypt reveals some interesting differences from the Canterbury design (Fig. I). Three piers retain the remains of ashlar dressings. They are fragmentary and, it has been suggested, their positions may be due to the recent work of assiduous masons of the Ministry of Works or their successors. However, they are shown on Gilyard Beer's plan as having been exposed by the clearance of the debris which he reported on in the Suffolk Institute's proceedings. 5 The apse pier fragment (Fig. I, A) has a circle segment of a pier base and in the lower plane a curved surface

I8

ASPECTS OF THE BURY ST EDMUNDS ABBEY CHURCH

Plan and section of surviving dressing at crypt apse pier (Fig. I,A) FIG . 2 .

corresponding to the apse (Fig. 2. PI. IV A). The chord of the pier base produces a diameter of approximately I. 53 m or 5 ft and the slightly curved surface produces a radius of about 4.14 m or 12 ft 7 in. 6 This fits weil into the plan of the crypt but the 5 ft diameter of the circular pier may appear too small to have carried three further stories and is tiny in comparison to the roughly contemporary rectangular piers in the crypts at St Augustine's and the cathedrals ofWorcester and Winchester?However, in support of the proposal that the principal crypt piers were circular is the surviving western most engaged pier on the north side (Fig. I, C) which also retains some of its circular facing (PI. IVB). In addition several of the crypt piers retain the imprints of their robbed ashlar facings. Some of these imprints are set diagonally revealing a method which is consistent with the construction of an ashlar faced circular pier. 8 There is astrong possibility that the proposed circular piers had attached responds. This is suggested by the other crypt pier with remaining dressings in the form of a pilaster with half shaft (Fig. I, B. PI. VA). It is important to note that the proposed circular pier with an engaged pilaster and half shaft is almost exactly similar to the north and south transept aisle piers at Winchester Cathedral and its use in the crypt at Bury (1081-95) would make it comfortably contemporary with Winchester (1079-93) and Ely (1083-93); the latter, of course, reliant on Winchester for the design of its eastern parts. 9 The admittedly slender evidence of the two pier dressings and the remains of the north-west engaged pier demonstrate that the principal supports in the crypt were circular incorporating half shaft and pilaster responds. It is remarkable that this method is without parallel amongst contemporary Anglo-Norman crypts and does not reappear until the late twelfth century at York Minster.

STEPHEN HEYWOOD

12

THE RAD lATING CHAPELS

The radiating chapels, in relation to the remains at St Augustine's, are similar in most respects with a very important difference which appears to have escaped the notice of previous investigators. It is clear that the angles between the chapels and the ambulatory wall were filled with segmental buttresses (Fig. I, D. PI. VB). These buttresses or quadrant pilasters are very distinctive and particular to East Anglia. They are most commonly found on round towered churches in the angles between the tower and the west wall of the nave. They also occur most dramatically on the radiating chape!s of Norwich CathedraI and there must be little doubt that this is the direct result of their use at Bury (PI. Vc). The Norwich examples may have risen to form turrets as they appear truncated in their present positions. lO It seems }irobable that similar turrets may have flanked the two- or three-storey chape!s at Bury. 1

THE RIVALRY WITH NORWICH

The weil attested acrimony which existed between the bishops of East Anglia and the abbots of Bury is reflected in the massive churches which they constructed. Bishop Herfast was intent on installing the seat of the diocese at Bury with its relics of St Edmund to underpin and enrich it. Abbot Baldwin outwitted him and obtained immunity from episcopal control from the king. 12 Herfast's successor, Herbert de Losinga, was obliged to retreat from Thetford, near Bury, to found the cathedraIon a virgin site 13 at Norwich without the advantage of important re!ics or even a previous ancient foundation. The bishops and abbots continued to snipe at each other until the end of the middle ages and, in the case of Herbert, he was not invited to the ceremony of the translation of the relics of St Edmund in 1095 and he complained bitterly.14 The two buildings reveal many common features, illustrating that each designer was weil aware of the other's progress. It has even been suggested that the designers may have been the same people for both churches. 15 They are both of similar scale and plan type with ambulatories and radiating chape!s. They have the same elevations and the north-west presbytery pier (Fig. I, E) has almost exactly the same moulding profiles as the Norwich crossing piers (PI. IIA and Fig. I I Fernie). To this we may add the distinctive quadrant pilasters mentioned above. Eric Fernie (q.v.) demonstrates that the two prelates were competing to build the larger church. After the completion of the eastern arm at Bury in 1095 there is a radical change of plan which involves the addition of an eastern aisle to the planned aisleless transepts. This had the purpose of lengthening the overall extent of the church, rende ring it one aisle bay width longer than Norwich. A preamble to this ploy is a possible explanation for an early change of plan at Norwich. The foundation stone at Norwich was laid in 1096 in the axial chapeJ.16 There is good evidence that preparations were being made as early as 1086 and there is astrong possibility that works may have begun before the foundation ceremony in 1096. The foundations of this axial chapel overlie the remains of an earlier, smaller chapel. The fabric of both phases is exactly similar and cannot differ significantly in date. I? This simple change of plan had radical implications for the design and size of the building because the chape! eventually built was on a different axis. The width of the first axial chape! at Norwich was the same as that at Bury (c. 3.7 m). These points suggest the following possible sequence of events:

ASPECTS OF THE BURY ST EDMUNDS ABBEY CHURCH

20

1081. Plans finalized and building commences at Bury.

From c. 1094. Foundations laid at Norwich. Axial chapel of same width as Bury.

1°95. Eastern arm completed at Bury.

1096. Foundation stone laid at Norwich according to a revised plan with a larger axial

chapel probably generating an increased width to the nave and aisles. c. 1I05. Eastern arm at Norwich completed. 1I07. Work on the Abbey church recommences to a revised plan with eastern aisIe added to the transept, thus lengthening the presbytery and the overalliength of the building by one bay. The completed eastern arms at Bury and Norwich must have been of the same dimensions for about two years. The decision to add an eastern aisle to the transepts increased the length of the presbytery by a bay and immediately left Norwich with a shorter eastern arm. Eventually, at the completion of both buildings in the 1140S,t8 the length of Bury from the chord of the apse to the west end excluding the west transept was 6.8 m longer than Norwich, almost precisely the width of the added transept aisle (6.27 m).19 CONCLUSION

Despite the loss of most of the fabric of the abbey church at Bury descriptions and scanty remains allow some significant revelations to be made. It is hoped that this paper contributes to the illustration of the political importanee associated with church buildings, how the independent abbey, possessing the relics of the East Anglian king and martyr, threatened the spiritual authority of the bishops. The bishop emulated and tried to improve on the massive abbey church with his new building on a virgin site as an expression of his authority. Although he failed to surpass the size and extent of the abbey the two buildings represented the economie and spiritual power of the Church in the region. Finally, the reliance of the two churches on each other reminds us of immediacy of the communication of architectural developments between designers in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

lam grateful to Steven Ashley for having drawn the figures.

REFERENCES For chronology see Fernie, above 2-3. Ibid., 6-7. 3. On pier forms in East Anglia see B. Cherry, 'Romanesque Architecture in Eastern England' , fBAA, 1.

2.

(I978),8-29·

CXXXI

4. R. Gem, 'The Significance of the I uh-century Rebuilding of Christ Church and St Augustine's, Canterbury, in the Development of Romanesque Architecture', BAA CT, v (I982), 1-19. For the crypt at Bury see also, Crook, 'Architectural Setting', below pp. 34-37. 5. Gilyard Beer, 'Eastern Arm'. 6. The system employed to calculate the radii which involves measuring the chord and the distance between the centre of the chord to the edge of the segment can only give approximate sizes due to the worn and damaged surfaces of the fragments.

STEPHEN HEYWOOD

2I

7. St Augustine's, n. 4; Winchester, E. C. Fernie 'The grid system and the design of the Norman CathedraI', BAA CT, VI (1983), Fig. S; R. D. H. Gem, 'Bishop Wulfstan II and the Romanesque Cathedral Church of Worcester', BAA CT 1(1978), IS-37. 8. Wilson comes to the same conclusion in a fleeting remark in C. Wilson, 'Abbot Serlo's Church at Gloucester (I089-rroo): lts Place in Romanesque Architecture', BAA CT, VII (I98S), 76, no. II. 9. Symeon, abbot of Ely (1081-93), was prior of Winchester before his appointment to Ely and wh en the reconstruction of the cathedral was begun by his brother Bishop Walkelin in 1079. 10. S. R. Heywood, 'The Romanesque Building', Norwich Cathedral: Church, City and Diocese, I096-I996, ed. I. Atherton, E. C. Fernie, C. Harper-Bill, A. Hassell Smith (London 1996), 89-90. II. The earliest Anglo-Norman choir with ambulatory and radiating chapels surviving above crypt level is Gloucester (1089). This has the peculiarly English sroried radiating chapels with the upper chapels corresponding ro the gallery level. It is quite possible that the same system existed at St Augustine's, Winchester, Bury and Worcester. lts existence at Norwich suggests that Bury had the arrangement too because Norwich clearly imitated the Bury design. 12. B. Dodwell, 'The Foundation of Norwich Cathedra!', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, sth series, 7 (I9S7), 2-3. A. Gransden, 'Baldwin, Abbot of Bury St Edmunds, I06S-I097', Anglo-Norman Studies IV (1981), 69-72. 13. E. C. Fernie, An Architectural History ofNorwich Cathedral (Oxford 1993), 14 no. 47. 14. 'Grave fert Herberrus episcopus dioceseus, qui non ad hoc interpellatur ut sit ex eis unus;' Memorials, I, 87. IS. Fernie, Norwich Cathedral, 139-40. 16. ibid., 13. 17. ibid., 19-23. 18. The upper south flanking chapel in the west transept was dedicated by Bishop John of Rochester before his death in 1142. The rowers we re not built until the time of Abbot Samson (rr82-I2rr). Whittingham, 17I. 19. The rota I internal lengths from the chord of the main apse are II7.S7 m at Bury, excluding the west transept and IIO.77 m at Norwich. Fernie, Norwich Cathedral, 138.

3

The West Front of the Abbey Church By J. Philip McAleer Althaugh the ruins of the abbey's western structure are impasing, and even partially intelligible fram the exteriar, the nature of the interiar spaces of the ensemble are difficult ta grasp due ta the houses which have been built inta it. Rebuilding fallawing the twa dacumented catastrophes of the 15th century has further confused the picture of the ariginal components of the west complex, while the callapse of much of the structure renders the extent of the later madificatians and their farm ambiguaus. Nonetheless, it is passible ta identify the ariginal ensemble as having consisted of a western transept surmaunted by an axial tawer and flanked by dauble-stareyed chapel blacks and actaganal structures. The reasans far this unusual assemblage of farms are not yet clear. The transept may have been the result of the desire far a manumental axial western tawer in order ta reaffirm the Angla-Saxan heritage of the abbey, but neither medieval saurces nor modern literature suggest a functian far the actaganal structures, the most unusual aspect of the west complex. With a profusion of chapels elsewhere in the building, the appearance of faur more in the western structure is alsa difficult ta justify, especially as they are without satisfyingly close farmal parallels. The recent unpicking of same of the domestic structures inserted inta the ruins has revealed that alteratian ta the fabric after either the collapse of the west tawer in 1430 or the fire of 1465 was more extensive than previausly suspected. INTRODUCTION

The west front at Bury was perhaps the most complex façade structure ever built in Britain or, indeed, on the Continent (PI. VIA). Of it, a sizable portion survives as a ruin stripped of the original ashlar facing and partly occupied by much later domestic structures. Thus many aspects of its initial form are far from clear or are greatly obscured. There were three major elements forming a five-part massing: a west transept with an axial crossing tower; flanking double-storeyed chapel blocks; and flanking octagons (see above, Fernie, 2 fig. 2). Each of these elements, if not unique, is unusual, even rare, without exact paraBels. A west transept is found at only four other churches in Britain: Ely Cathedral, and Kelso, Peterborough and Kilwinning abbeys.l Only at Ely and Kelso were there also axial west towers, a feature rare in this period among major aisled structures. 2 Chapel blocks are not found in association with any other west front; there are pale imitations at Ely alone, in the form of modest double-decker chapels opening directly off the transept arms. The octagonal structures at either end are a unique feature of the Bury façade. DOCUMENTED BUILDING HISTORY

The construction of a new abbey church is credited to the period of Abbot Baldwin (r065-97/8), and to the successive sacrists Thurstan and Tolin, work having begun perhaps shortly after r08r and the defeat of the attempt of Herfast, bishop of Thetford (r070-84), to make the abbey his cathedral. 3 The martyr's relics were translated in I095,4 indicating that at least the crypt and the choir were complete. The next sacrist, Godfrey, and the abbot, Robert II (II02-07), are said to have completed the cloister,

J.

PHILIP McALEER

23

chapter house, refectory, dormitory, infirmary, and abbot's 'camera,.5 It has, therefore, been suggested that during the remainder of Godfrey's term as sacrist (lI07-2I?), partly under Abbot Albold (lI14-19), the work completed in the church included the transept (to an enlarged scale) and centra I tower (to roof level) and the eastern bays of the nave. Godfrey also purchased a great bell, presumably for the central tower. Two sacrists in the time of Abbot Anselm (1121-48), Ralph and Hervey, completed the central tower and built the walls around the forecourt of the abbey church, as weil as erecting the parish church of St Mary, and the tower of St James. Also during their time, the double doors on the front of the church were wrought by Master Hugo. 6 This suggests that the core element of the west structure - the west transept - was nearing completion and this supposition seems to be confirmed by the fact that John, bishop of Rochester (either John I, 1125-37 or John II, lI37-42), dedicated 'the porticus of St Faith ... over the porticus of St Denis' ? There then seems to have been a rather protracted halt in the construction. It is not until forty years later that further work on the west complex is recorded, primarily under the abbacy of Samson (lI82-12lI), who had served as sub-sacrist under Abbot Hugh I (lI57-80), William Wiardel then being sacrist. As sacrist, lI80-82, Samson is credited with having 'completed one story in the major west tower'. His sacrist, Hugo, 'completed the great tower towards the west, placing the roof and leading it .... Also he fully completed the stonework of the tower next to the chapel of St Faith, one storey being completed in the other tower next to the chapel of St Catherine'. Hugo's successor, Walter de Banham (c. 1200-lI), 'fully completed the great tower which is next to the chapel of St Faith, placing the spire on it, the walling of which Hugo the sacrist had completed'.8 The sources do not reveal when the south 'tower' was completed. The west tower partially collapsed in J anuary 1430, during the abbacy of William Curteys (1429-46), when the south side feil; the following year the east side feil; in April 1432 the north and west sides were taken down. 9 Indulgences for its repair were granted by a papal bull of Pope Eugenius IV (1431-39).10 In 1435, a Colchester mason, John Wode, was given a contract of five years for the rebuilding of the tower. l l As a consequence of flooding in 1439, the pavement under the west 'campanile' (and in the transept as a whoie?) was raised three steps.12 Reconstruction of the west tower continued into the year 1465, as is evident from a series of legacies for its repair (1441, 1449,1457,1461,1464),13 when, due to the carelessness of workers in the west tower, a fire on 20 J anuary badly damaged the entire church. 14 Restoration started immediately under Abbot John Boon (1453-69),15 and continued into the next century. A bequest of 1492 was directed to the 'ye voughting' and 'to ye making of ye new stepyll at ye West dore of ye monastery'.16 Other legacies were made in 1495, 15°0, 15°2 and 1504.17 The abbey precinct was sold to John Eyer at the Dissolution for [412.19.4, and was then transferred to Thomas Badby.18 After being stripped of all valuable building materiais, the buildings became a quarry for the townspeople. Houses were built into the ruins of the west front, first in the later 17th century, with additional building and remodelling of them taking place in the 18th and 19th centuries. 19 INTERPRETATION AND RECONSTRUCTION

The material required for an definitive interpretation of the original form, and its subsequent alterations due to the two 15th-century catastrophies, is not fully available due to three factors: the west front is buried for over three metres across its entire width

12

WEST FRONT OF THE ABBEY CHURCH

and depth; the walls standing above modern ground level have been stripped of their ashlar facing (see above, Fernie, 2, fig. I) and domestic structures have been built into it - the last, the greatest and most unfortunate obstructions. These same factors also hinder the understanding of the relationship of the various parts to each other. And, since all the remaining visible evidence has not been completely recorded in the form of complete plans and sections, many aspects of the original structure and its modification must remain hypothetical or permit only tentative conclusions. 20 The original form of the Romanesque transept may be dealt with first. The evidence for a west transept is slight, for it is nowhere mentioned or implied in the documents. The springing of an arch projecting northwards from the massive east-west wall in the line of the south aisle can be interpreted as the remains of an arch which opened into the transept at the west end of the gallery (PI. VIB). The evidence for the tower over the intersection of the nave and west transept is purely documentary as the eastern piers are not preserved, although there is the possibility that their footings might be revealed by excavation. Some part of the north-west respond may be buried under lath and plaster work visible in the staircase in house No. I. In its original form, one can visualize the nave ending in the massive tower piers forming the east side of the western crossing with the large arches of the aisle and gallery returned to north or south, as still (partially) exists at Ely Cathedral. Presumably, the stair turret so prominently visible above the pier between the central and north façade recesses was attached to its north­ west corner; no evidence survives of one at the south (PI. VIA). The eastern face of the west wall of the transept is more difficult to visualize. From evidence in an attic room of house No. I, it would seem that it was characterized by three barrel-vaulted recesses talier than the externalones (PI. VIlA). Just how the wall surface between (what one assumes was) the barrel-vaulted external recess and the taller internal recess was filled is not anywhere revealed or hinted at. A curved sliver of wall south-east of the stair turret suggests that the middle recess may have been apsidal on the interior (PI. VIIIA).21 There is no evidence for any passage-ways in the mass of the west wall, which is rather surprising. A somewhat more complete picture of the chapel blocks is possible (PIs VIlB-VIllB). The chapels were apsidal, their apses covered by groined semidomes. Presumably they had windows in the section facing away from the aisles. The shallow niche preserved on the south side probably is evidence of a blind arch imitating the windows in the other bays. What is rather unexpected is that there was a windowopening into the adjacent aisie, a feature not found, for instance, at Ely. The chord of the apse was no doubt marked by a heavy arch or even a section of barrel vaulting which may have been coordinated with the staÏr vice found in the thickness of the wall at this point. West of this there was a nave or vestibule formed by four bays of groin vaulting which would have meant there were two piers on axis. The arrangement, although on a larger scale, would have been similar to that which still survives in the crypt chapels of Canterbury CathedraI where there are two differing solutions. In one, adopted for the chapels under the transept arms, the square nave with a central pier opens into a pair of apses; in the other, adopted for the two radiating chapels, the square nave with its centraI pier precedes a single apse from which it is separated by a pair of arches; it is the latter which forms the most exact parallel for the chapels at Bury.22 Of the four bay unit, the western two bays may weil have also served as a corridor between the transept and an octagon. In addition, if there was a western portal to the chapel blocks, the two western bays may have formed a kind of vestibule. The supposition that the main body of the chapel was divided into four bays with two axial

J.

PHILIP McALEER

12

piers would necessarily result in the presence of an axial buttress on the exterior. However, an axial buttress need not preclude a portal opening into the chapel block from the west, as a small portal could have been placed in either one of the bays.23 Each end wall of the transept would have been occupied at aisle level by two large arches opening into the chapel's nave or vestibule, with two arches much lower than the gallery arches opening into the upper chapel's nave. The low height of the upper chapels, vis-à-vis the height of the gallery, is unexpected. 24 There is no evidence of the clerestory nor of any passage-ways that might have occurred at that level. The upper chapels were seemingly reached from a stair vice in the thickness of the wall, rather than directly from the gallery itself, as seems also to have been true at Ely, although the location of the stair vice there was different. The upper chapels would have been almost crypt-like in character, especially when it is considered that the windows must have been rather small and the light level therefore quite low. The flanking octagonal structures appear to have been reached by (barrel-vaulted?) corridors opening by large arches from the western bay of the nave or vestibule of the chapel blocks: the entrance arch is preserved on the north (PI. IXA), while the vaulted corridor seems to be preserved in part at the south. However, if the three arches preserved in the wall immediately above on the north, which do not form a proper doorway or window, constituted a kind of clerestory lighting for the corridor to the octagon, then the 'evidence' of a barrel vault at a lower level on the south side cannot be original. Judging from the evidence preserved on the north, there seems to have been an upper level; the single large arch may have been the archway to a corridor linking an upper storey in the octagon with the nave of the upper chapel. A stair vice may have been located on the west side of the corridor, adjacent to the chapel block. (A modern spiral sta ir occupies the corresponding position on the south providing access to the inserted upper floor of the octagon ['Samson's Tower'].) The evidence for it, as preserved on the north, is not unequivocal. On the south, there may be the remains of a passage-way angling through the mass of the pier between houses Nos 2 and 3, at attic level, which may have connected a turret at the south edge of the chapel block with one at the south-west angle of the tower. About the octagonal structures themselves, one can say relatively little, despite the fact that one is preserved in its full circumference and to a considerable height (PI. IXB). The stripping away of the exterior ashlar and the insertion of windows in the 19th century have effectively eliminated all reliable evidence for exterior articulation. As to the size and shape of the windows, the unaltered but blocked north-east one indicates that they were wide and semicircularly arched. Since the interior walls are also completely covered by lath and plaster, nothing is known about its internal disposition. An inserted floor and a subdividing cross wall further destroy any sen se of the interior space, even as it survives. Thus there is no evidence whether the octagons were one tall space or, for instance, a major space with a minor one above, rather like the Corona at Canterbury was intended to be,25 or if horizontal divisions were created by vaults or wooden floors. The picture which emerges is one probably less grandiose and more unified than the pictorial restorations suggest. 26 The transverse block-like mass of the western transept, identified by the three large arched recesses on its exterior, was crowned by an axial tower rising between the pitched roofs of its shallow arms. This was flanked by lower chapel blocks whose roofs mayalso have been constructed with their ridge running north-south rather than east-west, with the semi-conical roofs over the chapels' apses hidden from the west view. The linking corridors and the octagons may have formed a

12

WEST FRONT OF THE ABBEY CHURCH

screen-like extension of the chapel blocks, the octagons expressively punctuated by conical roofs making them look rather like paired chapter houses. The octagons were the last elements of the façade to be built, and it has been suggested they were an addition to the original design. 27 There is, however, little evidence to support this idea. The surviving core masonry of the waIl between the north chapel block and the vanished north octagon appears to be of one build. This waIl must have been designed and built with the octagon in mind, as part of the chapel block, since it contains the ground-floor passage-way which connected the octagon to the vestibule in front of the chapel, as weIl as the more enigmatic upper level set of three arches, one of which at least penetrated the wal I. In the same way, the arches in the opposite waIl in turn link the chapel's origin to the initial construction of the transept. The amount of damage which the west structure experienced in the successive dis asters of the 15th century is difficult to determine and to distinguish. As the centra\ tower reportedly feIl in a piecemeal fashion, it may be that the damage was confined primarily to its arches and piers, the coIlapsing masonry faIling verticaIly, inside the tower. This is suggested especiaIly by the fact that, although the south side of the tower feIl first, the south chapels seem to have survived the 15th century relatively intact, while it is the north chapels which show evidence of a drastic alteration. Rebuilding, of whichever period, as now preserved, appears to have affected the north half more than the south. The interior face of both transept end waIls was strengthened by an additional rubble refacing; the Romanesque ashlar must have been first removed, since it is nowhere apparent. The south end waIl seems to have been featureless, but, in contrast, the north end wall received three taIl shaIlow panels which, unfortunately, seem not to have been relieved by any tracery (PI. XA). Towards the west, the northern inner recess was lowered in height by the insertion of a tierceron or fan vault (PIs VIlA, XB). There is no visible evidence whether a similar modification was made to the central or southern recesses. In any case, there is no evidence, in the attic room of house No. I, that the main space of the transept was ever vaulted (PI. XIB). And the presence of a clerestory in this phase may be doubted for, several feet above the arch of the recess, the horizontal coursing of the waIl is replaced by courses sloping downward to the north, as if in preparation for a roof. But a roof over the entire width of the transept arm sloping to the north seems highly improbable constructionaIly, so the interpretation of the sloping courses is problematic to say the least. A clerestory is, however, indicated by the waIling above the sloping courses of masonry which returns to the horizontal, as there are two smaIl narrow oblong windows with splays opening towards the east; hence, the side seen from the attic room is the interior (PI. XIB). Can the eccentric characteristics of this waIl be related to two phases of the 15th-century repairs: the first with a lowered roof eliminating the clerestory (damaged by the coIlapse of the tower), and the second with a re built heightened waIl including a minuscule clerestory? The upper part of the stair vice as it now stands is built of rubble inside and out and bonds in with this 'clerestory' wall (PI. XIA). The rubble construction on the inside of the vice forms an emphatic contrast to the typical Romanesque ashlar used in its \ower part. The openings broken through the wall of the vice at this level are possibly, very likely, only post-Dissolution in date. The recent removal of the lath and plaster facing of the north face of the north chapel's south waIl revealed that these chapels had been extensively altered, whether due to the collapse of the crossing tower or to damage during the 1465 fire is not clear. The vaults of both chapels had been removed in order to create one taB space simply

J.

PHILIP McALEER

27

covered by a wooden roof. At the same time, the stair vice was blocked up and the parts of it which projected beyond the faces of the wall were cut back flush with the wall surfaces. The vaults of the south chapels seemed to have remained intact, even though on this side, too, the stair vice and the arches to the transept were blocked Up.28 If the extreme renovations in the north chapels were caused by severe fire damage, one wonders then, if the complete disappearance of the north octagon can be accounted for byeven greater destruction which perhaps caused it to be pulled down shortly after. It is unfortunate that the remains of the 15th-century rebuildings are so grim or austere in their lack of detail. This makes it difficult to assign them any precise date or to formulate an association with one of the master masons known to have been in the employ of the ab bey in that period, such as William Layer (fl. 1419-d. 1444), Simon Clerk (fl. 1445-d. 1489), or John Wastrell (fl. 1485-d. 1515). Even the springers of the vault inserted under the north internal recess utilize such generic profiles - a roll flanked by quarter hollows - that the form of the vault is uncertain and impossible to attribute to a known master. SIGNIFICANCE

There is no evidence to indicate that a west transept was part of the programme of the abbey church from the beginning when work (or planning) started c. 1080 under Abbot Baldwin. lndeed, several factors suggest the contrary. First, there is the evidence of the increase in the scale of the building east of the east crossing piers. The change is visible between the westmost choir pier and the crossing pier: the walls become six inches thicker and the choir twenty-two inches wider. 29 This suggests, at least, a change of programme regarding the ambitions of the monks for the grandeur of the abbey church. It is possible there was a pause of over a decade in its construction, between the translation of the relics in 1095 until about Il07 (death of Abbot Robert II) and the resumption of work during the later part of Godfrey's long tenure (I107-21?) as sacrist. Ir was probably during this period that the plan for the abbey church was revised. 30 Secondly, Abbot Baldwin built a church dedicated to St Denis, to serve as the parish church, to the west of the (newly begun?) abbey church. 31 This building eventually had to be pulled down to make way for part of the present west front in which a chapel of the same dedication perpetuated its memory.3 Excavation seems to have confirmed this account, as the remains of the parish church have been uncovered under the north chapel and octagon, extending twenty-four feet to the west of the latter's west front. 33 A new parish church was built further west. 34 This seems to be definite evidence that a nave of the lenljth, and a west front of the width actually built were not anticipated in the beginning. 3 Even if the abbey church was not begun when Baldwin had the parish church constructed, its position - a significant di stance west of the Anglo-Saxon monastic church - suggests that he thought he was leaving plenty of room for the reconstruction of the monastic church, which, if not then begun, was no doubt in his mind. Ir is possible that a west transept was not decided upon until as late (or as early) as the final phase of work on the nave which has been credited to the sacrists Ralph and Hervey (successors to Godfrey), during the rule of Abbot Anselm (Il21-48).36 Unfortunately, the complete destruction of the nave up to the west crossing piers precludes any confirmation of probable building breaks until further excavation is carried out.

12

WEST FRONT OF THE ABBEY CHURCH

A third factor, one which is a matter of circumstantial evidence, is what appears to have been a lack of definitive advance planning for the western structure itself, if it is accepted that the flanking octagons were an addition to the core which consisted of the transept and its flanking chapel blocks. The impression that decisions about the final form and composition of the west front were not made until close to the actual time of their construction, c. II82-1200/12II, is inescapable but, despite their late construction, there is no evidence they were actually conceived of as an addition and were not in fact planned earlier. Because the transept space at Bury does not extend beyond the aisle walls, it may be questioned if the transept space was considered, at the time of its conception, to be the primary factor. The appearance of the transept may seem to be explained by the desire to accommodate western chapels. However, this would perhaps only be true if th~ chapels opened directly off the transept space as they do at Ely. But since the chapels effectively formed discrete flanking blocks, separate from the main space and massof the transept, they could just as weil have been located (in exactly the same form) next to the western ais Ie bays of a nave with simply a west wall for a façade. 37 This is all the more evident when it is considered that the nave galleries apparently did not give access to the upper chapel levels which, instead, were reached from newel stairs in the thickness of the walls between chapels and aisles. On one level, it might have seemed more convenient for the aisle vaults to have been continued across the ends of the transept as a platform, as in deed was the case in some eastern transepts of this period in Normandy and England. 38 However, rather than having the chapels open directly off the eastern sides of the projecting arms of the transept, as at Ely, the spaces of a potential projection of the transept arms beyond the line of the aisle walls at Bury was appropriated to the chapels. This arrangement obviously made better use of the space, because it provided the apsidal chapels with discrete naves (the eastern double bays), spacious and clearly defined, and also had the virtue of separating and protecting the chapel proper (apse and adjacent double bay) from the traffic flow between octagon and transept which was accommodated by the western double bay. Bury was exceptionally rich in chapels: apart from those in the crypt, and those of the ambulatory and transept arms, there were possibly ten other chapelsin the nave. 39 This plenitude would suggest that, strictly speaking, western chapels were not a necessity. The existence of the flanking chapel blocks may be simply explained by the de sire of Anselm to perpetuate the dedication of Baldwin's parish church, although Anselm himself had no particular connection with the abbey of Saint-Denis, nor with the cult of St Denis. Possibly the desire for a symmetrical arrangement, as is usually evident in church plans, dictated that one chapel became flanking chapels, but the reason or need for the double-decker arrangement is not apparent. The presence of the axial west tower at Bury might be considered to be the raison d'être for the transept at the formallevel. In England, after the Conquest, an axial west tower as part of the façade structure of a major building was virtually unprecedented. 40 The appearance of an axial west tower after ro66 was restricted to parish churches, usually those of modest scale, that is, those without aisles. In this respect, the continued use of the axial tower in sm all scale parochial buildings may be a continua ti on of the Anglo-Saxon custom, for axial west towers were common among Anglo-Saxon buildings, in which distinction of scale between parochial, monastic, or cathedral structures seem not to have been so very great - with a few exceptions. Normally, after the Conquest, when towers appeared at the west, it was as part of the composition of a twin-tower façade. The use of a single axial tower for a major structure did not

J.

PHILIP McALEER

29

become common until the late Gothic period, the 14th and 15th centuries. Before then, the axial west towers of Bury, Ely, and Kelso in Scotland, all buildings with western transepts, remained exceptional. In choosing an axial tower rather than twin-towers for the façade, the necessity for a transept is created, unless the tower were to stand in front of a west wall as a semi-independent entity. Considering the possible Anglo­ Saxon associations of the axial tower, it may be asked if it is relevant that some references to the flanking chapel blocks call them 'porticus' rather than 'capella,41 even though they differ so much in form and context, and possibly function, from the usual porticus as found in some Anglo-Saxon churches. 42 The emphasis on links with the Anglo-Saxon past would, of course, be entirely appropriate to a monastery which claimed to possess the incorrupt body of one of the pre-eminent Anglo-Saxon saints, a royal martyr, whose cult had been vigorously championed by Abbot Baldwin and his 12th-century successors, especially Abbot Samson. 43 The existence of the axial crossing tower would seem to be the explanation for the arched recesses of the west wall of the transept. The western piers of the tower were heavily buttressed against the westward thrust of the crossing arches. Perhaps for harmony, the western angles of the transept were equally massively buttressed; this allo wed for, or perhaps was do ne in order to accommodate, massive arches linking the buttresses together, thereby disguising their function. The proportions of the recesses at Bury are derived from the relative widths of the bays of the tripartite transept behind. Thus their design, as weil as their existence, or function, seems explained by the transept and, behind or above it, the axial west tower. The flanking octagons, generally referred to as 'towers' in the modern literature on the abbey, because the sources des cri be them as 'turris', are not given any function in the same sources. They seem not to have been chapels, since there is no evidence that they contained altars, although a font may have been placed in the southern one. 44 Their original height is a problem. It could be argued that it was not much greater than survives in the southern one: that they were in effect rather chapter-house-like structures (even if there was an upper room) capped by pitched roofs, rather than tall spires. 45 It is tempting to think of them as vaulted, at a level above the tall windows, the blank wall rising above the windows (now pierced by 19th-century roundels) corresponding in the original to the zone of the vault. Otherwise, it is odd that there are no signs of a second tier of windows. The diameter of the octagon seems also to make it unlikely that they were tall multi-staged towers rivalling either axial tower. Regardless of their original height, the mere fact of their presence is one of the most mysterious aspects of the west front, both formally and functionally, for the octagons seem to have no precedents nor true successors. In the history of western architecture, circular or polygonal buildings have served variously as bath halls, tempIes, imperial mausolea, fountain houses, baptisteries, martyria, palace chapels and simulacra of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. As perhaps was the case with the western tower and transept, did the octagons have their origin in an attempt to recall the abbey's 'Anglo­ Saxon' heritage, the central plan form derived from or alluding to the round church built in the 1020S by Cnut (1016-35) and his queen Emma? But would the requirements of symmetry here have al most made nonsense out of any architectural iconography? Admittedly, the two similar structures could have had two traditional functions, one serving as a kind of memorial chapel and the other as a baptistery.46 Further excavation might reveal some firmer facts about the form of the octagons and other elements of the west front, but it would seem that the reasons for its form

WEST FRONT OF THE ABBEY CHURCH

3°

and its symbolism and functions wiU remain an enigma to come.

at least yet for a little while

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Travel to the conference was made possible by an allowance from the School of Architecture, Technical University of Nova Scotia, while research for the paper and conference expenses were funded by part of a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. In Bury, I must thank Carol Rowntree, Research Officer with the St Edmundsbury Borough Leisure Services Department, for arranging access to the west front on more than one occasion. On my most recent trip, thanks are especially due to jennifer A. Carlile, Conservation Officer with the St Edmundsbury Borough Technical Services Department, for greatly facilitating matters. And not least of all, two of the late occupants of the houses in the west front, Miss Marion Hampshire (d. 1989), and Miss Iris Stevenson Adams (d. 1992) must be remembered for their kindness, trust and hospitality in admitting me to their homes more than once.

REFERENCES 1. J. P. McAleer, 'Le problème du transept occidental en Grande-Bretagne', Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, XXXIV/3-4 (r991), 349-56. 2. An axial west tower was certainly intended - if not actually built- at Leominster Priory (Herefordshire), in the mid r2th century. See: RCHM, Herefordshire, lIl. North-West (London 1934), rII-I2 (no. 46); N. Pevsner, The Buildings of England: Herefordshire (Harmondsworth 1963), 225. Until recently, Leominster appeared unique in this respect (amongst aisled churches without a west transept): however, Dr Glyn Coppack has kindly drawn my attention to the recent, but as yet unpublished, excavations at Gisborough Priory when tra ces of the aisled nave of the I2th-century church, which appears also to have had an axial west tower, were uncovered. See, provisionally, G. Coppack, Gisborough Priory (English Heritage, London 1993),7, 16-r7 (plan). 3. These dates and 'facts', and those which follow in this summary history, are generally repeated from one modern authority to another, e.g.: James, Abbey, II7-20; J. C. Cox, '[Religious Houses: Houses of Benedictine Monks, 1.] The Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds', VCH Suf{olk, n (1907), 58-59; or Whittingham, 169-72. They are primarily based on Harley ro05 (Gesta Sacristarum), fols I20[rI4r-I2r[II51' (here, and in subsequent manuscript citations, the ol der foliation is given in brackets): Memoriais, n, 289-9r; James, Abbey, 152-54; O. Lehmann-Brockhaus, Lateinischen Schriftquellen zur Kunst in England, Wales und Schottland, vom Jahre 90I bis zum Jahre I307, 5 vols (Munich 1955-60), I, 127 no. 474, 133 no. 495, 137 no. 510, 148-49 no. 535, 150 no. 541. With reference to the beginning of the new church see also Bodley 297, p. 397 (under the year 1095): Memoriais, I, 351. The earliest reference is in BL MS Cotton Tiberius B.n (attributed to Hermann the Archdeacon), fol. 78[77]'): Memoriais, I, 85; Lehmann­ Brockhaus, 127 no. 475. 4. See also Bodley 297, p. 397 (under the year 1095): MemoriaIs, I, 351-52; James, Abbey, 157; Lehmann­ Brockhaus, Schriftquellen, I, 131 no. 484. 5. Also Bodley 297: Memoriais, I, 356. 6. The bronze doors are also mentioned in the early 15th-century kitchener's register of Bury (Douai 553 [fol. 7 James, Abbey, 180. 7. J. Battely, Antiquitates S. Edmundi Burgi ad Annum MCCLXXII perductae (Oxford 1745), 67; Hills, 'Antiquities', 47; Whittingham, 171: Harley ro05 (De Dedicationibus), fol. 217[213]' (James, Abbey, 161; Bury Customary, rr6; Lehmann-Brockhaus, Schriftquellen, I, 134 no. 497). There is some dispute as to whether Bishop John I (1I25-37?) was indeed succeeded by a John II, of Séez (II37-42): see A. Saltman, 'John II, Bishop of Rochester', EHR, LXVI (1951),71-75; cf., E. B. Fryde et al., Handbook of British Chronology (London 1986), 267. It seems more probable th at John I is meant since John II might weil have been mentioned as 'episcopus Sagiensis', as he was in a later 12th-century reference. However, A. W. Morant, 'On the Abbey of Bury St. Edmund's', PSIAHN, IV (1874), 388, implied it was John H, as was also believed by Whittingham (1951), 171, and A. B. Whittingham, Bury St. Edmunds Abbey: Official Handbook (Department of the Environment, London 1971), 5. V

]):

J.

PHILIP McALEER

31

8. Harley 1005 (Gesta Sacristarum), fol. IZl[115]': Memorials, II, 29I.5; James, Abbey, 153-54; Lehmann­ Brockhaus, Schriftquellen, 15° no. 54I. In each instance, the octagon is referred to as a 'turris', the same word Gervase used with reference to the Corona at Canterbury: The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols (RS, LXXIII, 1879, 1880), I, 28-9; Of the Burning and Repair of the Church of Canterbury in the Year II74, ed. C. Cotton (Friends of Canterbury Cathedral, Cambridge 1930),19. 9. J. Gage, 'Historical Notices of the Great Bell Tower of the Abbey Church of St. Edmundsbury', Archaeologia, XXIII (1831), 329-3°; Hills, 'Antiquities', 52; James, Abbey, 122; Whittingham, 175. See BL, MS Add. 14848 (Registrum Curteys), fols 105[87]'-106[88]' (an extensive account of the collapse and rebuilding of the tower), IZ8[IIO]' (the visit of Henry VI in 1433 at which time the ruins prevented his entry via the west door; also printed in W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. ]. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel, 6 vols (London 1817-30), III, II3), and 336[3°9]' (the fallen tower is identified as the west tower). 10. Gage, 'Historical Notices', 330; Hills, 'Antiquities', 53; Morant, 'Abbey', 388; Whittingham (1951), 175: BL, MS Add. 14848 (Registrum Curteys), fol. 319[292]'. II. BL, MS Add. 14848 (Registrum Curteys), fols 335[308]'-337[310]'; for the text of the contract, which is written in English, see: Gage, 'Historical Notices', 330-32, or Woods (see n. 13 below), 21-23. 12. Gage, 'Historical Notices', 332; Hills, 'Antiquities', 53; Whittingham, 175: BL, MS Add. 14848 (Registrum Curteys), fol. 349[322Y--v. 13. SRO/B, IC 50012/1 (Registrum Osbern), fol. 248: wil! of John Hert, dated 21 September 1441, proved 16 November. SRO/B, IC 5001212 (Registrum Hawlee), fol. 129: will of Denis Redgys, dated 26 July 1449, proved 12 August; fol. 57, will of Lady Ela Shardelowe, proved 16 November 1457 (Wills and lnventories from the Registers of the Commissary of Bury St. Edmund's and the Archdeacon of Sudbury, ed. S. Tymms (Camden Society, XLIX, 185°), 13-14 [13]; James, Abbey, 168); fol. IZ9, will of John Amy, dated 4 May 146I, proved 20 J uly. St John's College, Oxford, MS 209 (the so-called Brevis Cronica from Bury), fol. I04v, has a reference to the will of Prior Richard Ryngsted (died 1464): Memorials, III, 298. These references, as weil as those relating to wills in the following notes, have been drawn from an unpublished compilation of texts, accompanied by translations, made by Humphrey Woods for English Heritage: Text 31, 'Buty St Edmunds Abbey. The Histoty of the West Front of the Abbey Church from Manuscript Sources' ([typescript: 33 pp.] 1989),24-25, 29-3 I. Whittingham, 175 nn 10 and 19, made reference to legacies of 1441,1449,1452,1457, and 1465 for the rep air of the west tower, based on the Collectanea Buriensia (SRO/B, MS FL 541/5980, formerly Vestry, Bury St Edmunds Cathedral: a collection of extra cts from the monastic registers made by Sir J ames Burrough), fol. 541, but I have not been able to consult this collection. 14. James, Abbey, 122; Whittingham, 175: based on BL MS Cotton Claudius A.XII (Registrum Hostilariae), fols 193[190]'-194[191]' (see: Memoriais, II1, 283-87; James, 205-°7, and translation, 208-IZ). 15. Whittingham, 175-76: St John's College, Oxford, MS 209 (Brevis Chronica), fol. I05v (Memorials, II1, 298). Abbot Boon contributed f200 for the nave, fr33 for vaulting (ad woltam), flOo for the Lady Chapel, and left f33 for new choir stalIs. Also see SRO/B IC 5001212 (Registrum Hawlee), fol. 85: wil! of Matthew Robert, dated 2 April 1465, proved 8 May 1465. 16. Gage, 'Historical Notices', 333; Hills, 'Antiquities', 53; Whittingham, 176. 17. SRO/B, IC 50012/4 (Registrum Pye): fol. 44, will of Thomas Eden, dated 4 September 1495, proved 20 May 1496; fol. 100, will of William Legat, dated 4 July 15°0; fol. 154, will of William Baret, dated I August 1502, proved 1504 (ed. Tymms, Wills, 93-95 [94]; James, Abbey, 168); fol. 162b, will of Anne Barett, dated 21 August 1504, proved 1504 (ed. Tymms, 95-99 [97]; James, 168). 18. R. Yates, An lllustration of the Monastic History and Antiquities of the Town and Abbey of St. Edmund's Bury (London 1805 [2IId edn, 1843]),245; Whittingham, 168; Whittingham, Handbook, 12. 19. Houses do not seem to have been built into the west front until the late 17th century, beginning with that later known as No. I. Several units at the south received new cement window frames in a Romanesque Revival style in the spring of 1863 when they were converted (by William Rednall) to form the Bury St Edmunds District Probate Registry: Hills, 'Antiquities', 40; also see Victorian Bury St. Edmunds in Photographs, comp. and ed. Margaret Statham and William Serjeant (Ipswich 1980),6 (pI. 3). 20. My detailed description of the remains, especially of those elements concealed within the later houses, accompanied by appropriate illustrations, wil! be published in the Proceedings of the Suffolk lnstitute of Archaeology and History, XXXIX (1997). 21. Whittingham, 171, seems to refer to this sliver of walling: 'Windows must have been restricted to the centre bay where the clerestory floor is 6 ft lower and both inner angles have a later wide curve [emphasis

32

22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

27. 28.

29. 30.

31. 32. 33. 34.

35.

36. 37.

WEST FRONT OF THE ABBEY CHURCH added]'. It is interesting that he seems to suggest that it is Gothic rather than Romanesque, as the masonry appears to me, and that there are the remains of a curve at either side. See F. Woodman, The Architectural History ofCanterbury Cathedral (London, Boston and Henley 198I), 51-54, fig. 28. Excavations in front of the chapel block in 1958 were limited to a trench four feet wide towards the north and so did not produce any evidence one way or the other for doorways. See A. R. Dufty and C. A. R. Radford, 'Trial Excavations at Bury St. Edmunds: A Report Prepared for the Society of Antiquities, [I959] 1960' (typescript: 7 pp. + 3 drawings), 2-3, and site plan dated September 1958. Whittingham, IlO, cited a height of 19 ft (5.79 m) for the gallery ('triforium') (versus 2.5 m for the chapel), and 26 ft (7.925 m) for the nave arcade, based on the evidence at the crossing piers. But without the crypt presented at Canterbury: see Woodman, Architectural History, 124-25. Four such pictorial reconstructions are known to me. The earliest appears to be by W. K. Hardy, a watercolour now in the Manor House Museum (copy on display in the Abbey 'Great' Gate of 1346): see M. Statham, Baak of Bury St Edmunds (Buckingham 1988), pI. on 39, where it is dated 1883. A watercolour on display in the cathedral church of St J ames represents a second, later and rather different restoration view by Hardy. At the time of his lecture on the history of the abbey, given at the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology, 5 July 1922, Cyril E. Power exhibited a series of watercolours, of which his resto red view of the façade was published as a line print by The Bury and Norwich Post: see SRO/B, nos K5lI1r02a, band K5lI/373. Finally, there is the reconstruction by A. B. Whittingham: Whittingham, Handbaak, 12. Whittingham, Il2: 'Apparently, the N. octagon was not begun until after the walls of the main tower were complete (c. lI90) and the masons finished the N. octagon before starting on the S'. P. Aitkins, in reports prepared for English Heritage: 'No. IA The Abbey Ruins. An Archaeological Survey of the Medieval Fabric Exposed During 198]: Introductory Notes' (typescript: 2 pp.), I, para. 5; and 'No. IA The Abbey Ruins, Bury St Edmunds: Some Notes on the Interpretation of the Surveyed Walling' [typescript: 9 pp.], 4 [sec. 3. 1], para. 3-4· James, Abbey, lI8; Whittingham, 170. Whittingham, 170, attributed the increase in scale to Godfrey and dated it to after II07. James, Abbey, lI8, considered the enlargement under 'Godefridus' would have made the foundations of the (east) transept and nave laid by Baldwin useless (James, lI7, claimed that Baldwin and his sacrists laid the foundations for the entire church). Hills, 'Antiquities', 46, attributed the change to a 'larger scale than originally contemplated' to Anselm and 'Radulph Harvey' (sic) - i.e., Ralph and Hervey. In his paper in this volume, E. Fernie attributes the increase in scale to the very last years of Baldwin's tenure (I095-971 8), and suggests it was motivated by Baldwin's desire to excel the new cathedral church be gun at Norwich by Bishop Herbert de Losinga in I096. Whittingham, 174-75: Harley Io05 (De Dedicationibus), fol. 218[2141' (James, Abbey, 161-62; Bury Customary, lI8). See above n. 31. James, I I 8, attributed the destruction of St Denis to Ralph and Hervey. Dufty and Radford, 'Trial Excavations', 4-5; only 5 ft (1.525 m) of the wall we re uncovered; it was over 3 ft 6 in. (1.065 m) thick, although the east face was not located. Harley Io05 (De Dedicationibus), fol. 218[214]~v: James, Abbey, 162; Bury Customary, lI8-19. lts site is marked by the later building, now the cathedralof St James, directly in front of the north chapel block and octagon. A second parish church, St Mary's, also found a place in the outer court; both parish churches we re built during the abbacy of Anselm. St Mary's (Harley Io05, fol. 217[2131': 'ecclesiasm sanctae Mariae parochiam villae') was dedicated by Bishop J ohn of Rochester (see above, n. 7). St J ames is said to have been built by Anselm in substitution for a pilgrimage to Santiago de CompostelIa; it was consecrated by William of Corbeuil, archbishop of Canterbury (lI23-36) (Harley ro05, fol. 218[214]'). The halting point for Godfrey's work west of the crossing, suggested by Whittingham, IlO, consisting of four arcade bays, th ree of the triforium (gallery), and two of the clerestory, while logical, plausible, and a practice confirmed by actual examples such as Durham Cathedral (where the buttressing elements consisted of one clerestory bay, two gallery bays, and three arcade bays), is purely theoretica I due to the complete destruction of the nave except for the cores of the west crossing piers which are not informative. Excavation of the nave might produce evidence of building breaks at the level of the bases of aisle walls and piers. ' James, Abbey, lI9. An approximate parallel for this possible alternative arrangement is offered by the Ottonian church of Sankt Pantaleon, Cologne (966-roool05), where the west end of the tall, unvaulted, aisleless nave (later altered) was flanked by lower two-storeyed chapel blocks. In addition, a tower rose over the area of the

J. 38.

39. 40. 41.

42.

43.

44. 45.

46.

PHILIP McALEER

33

nave between the towers. See L. Grodecki, L'architecture ottonienne (Paris 1958), 50, figs 16 (on SI) and 88 (on 269); also H. E. Kubach, Romanesque Architecture (New York 1975),22,65, pI. 58 (on 67). Such platforms still exist at Winchester Cathedral and we re originally built at Ely Cathedral. For a discussion of these and related buildings in Normandy and England see J. P. McAleer, 'A Note about the Transept Cross Aisles of Ely CathedraI', Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, LXXXI (199 2), SI-7°. James, Abbey, 130. See above, n. 2. For the use of 'porticus' see Harley ro05 (De Dedicationibus), fol. 217[213]" (James, Abbey, 161; Bury Customary, II6). Cf. the use of 'capella' in Harley 1005, fol. I2I[II5]' (Gesta Sacristarum: Memoriais, I1, 291; James, 153), and fols 154[no no.]', and 155[148]' UB, 96; also Memoriais, I, 294, 297; James, 155; Lehmann-Brockhaus, Schriftquellen, 141 no. 524). For porticus, or the rectangular side chambers which opened off the naves, and occasionally apses, of some Anglo-Saxon churches, especially those in the south-east, see A. W. Clapham, English Romanesque Architecture, I. Befare the Conquest (Oxford 1930),26-28, figs 6-8, or E. Fernie, The Architecture of the Anglo-Saxons (London 1983),42-43. The term appears in eontemporary sources, e.g. Bede (see Clapham, 28 n. 3); one of their functions was certainly for burials. See A. Gransden, 'The Alleged Ineorruption of the Body of St Edmund, King and Martyr', Antiquaries Journal, LXXIV (1994), 134-68, esp. 140-55. Of Baldwin's possible attribution of a viewing of the incorrupt body to his Anglo-Saxon predecessor, Leofstan (ro45-65), she remarked (152): 'The earlier date provided a link with the Anglo-Saxon past and such links were highly prized by monasteries in the inseeure early years of Anglo-Norman rule'. James, Abbey, 129, 185, citing BL MS Harley 2977 (Rituale monasterii S. Edmundi), fol. 40'. In Bodley 240, p. 665 (Memoriais, I, 371 no. 19), a 14th-century account of the first glimpse by pilgrims of the abbey chureh still six miles distant, suggests that there was only one tower of dominating height, either the central or western one: 'Transeundo igitur versus locum, prae visa eelsitudine eampanilis ecclesiae S. Edmundi .. .'. See Clapham, English Romanesque, 149; Whittingham, 169-7°, 173-74; Fernie, Architecture of the Anglo-Saxons, 157. Cnut's aisled rotunda was both a royal and saintly mausoleum (martyrium), but neither its function nor symbolism could be duplicated in one of the west front octagons, if only beeause the relies of the saint were housed in the choir of the church. And although the marytium was dedicated in I032 to Christ, St Mary and St Edmund (see Whittingham, 174; Gransden, 'Incorrupt Body', 140-41), neither of the oetagons could have assumed the function of a Lady Chapel, as a strueture for that purpose was located off the east side of the north arm of the eastern transept, partlyon the site of Cnut's rotunda (part of the latter's foundations we re discovered in 1275 when the Gothic Lady Chapel was built: Whittingham, 174; Gransden, 141).

The Architectural Settingof the Cult of

St Edmund at Bury 1°95-1539

By John Craok Although the eastern arm of the abbey church of Bury, setting of the shrine of St Edmund, was destroyed at the Reformation, there is sufficient archaeological and documentary evidence to determine its design. In this paper, the evidence for the crypt is examined in detail, and from this analysis the plan of the presbytery is inferred. The paper concludes with a discussion of the position of the shrine of St Edmund and its likely design in the late Romanesque period. INTRODUCTION

The early 1090S were a busy period for Anglo-Norman bishops. In I091 the reliquaries of many saints were translated into the half completed monastery church of St Augustine's, Canterbury by Gundulf, bishop of Rochester. 1 A few years earlier, GunduIf had translated the relics of Paulinus into his own new cathedral, still under construction. 2 Two years later, on 8 April 1093, 'almost every prelate in the land' attended the first consecration of the great new cathedral that was being built under Bishop Walkelin's patronage at Winchester. On 29 April I095 Walkelin, with the help of Ranulf Flambard, presided over the translation of the relics of St Edmund into Abbot Baldwin's new abbey church at Bury St Edmunds. 3 The translation of the mortal remains of the loc al saint accompanied the consecration of many of the greater Anglo-Norman churches (though at Winchester the ceremonial entry of Swithun was delayed for a few months after the first dedication), and it is therefore of interest to consider the physical setting of such relic cults, and to examine the possible influence of saints' cults on the architectural development of the cathedraIs and churches wherein they we re housed. 4 THE ARCHITECTURAL SETTING OF THE SHRINE OF ST EDMUND

At St Edmund's Abbey the eastern arm of the church, site of the shrine, is now represented only by the excavated crypt (PI. XIIA). Nevertheless, by studying this archaeological evidence in the light of the documentary sources, some conclusions may be reached about the physical setting of Edmund's relics. In earlier centuries, notably in the Carolingian period, vaulted structures which contemporary authors usually called cryptce were built with the specific intention of housing relics, and their architectural forms, though diverse, reflected this function. Surviving examples include the ring-crypts of Rome, and their transalpine derivatives, such as are found in the churches at Chur (St Lucius) and Saint-Maurice d'Agaune; the corridor crypts of Saint-Quentin and Saint-Médard; the complex arrangement built by Abbot Hilbod at Saint-Philbert de Grandlieu; the confessio of St Germanus at Auxerre, and the similar crypt at Flavigny; and many other minor examples in smaller churches. In post-Conquest England, however, following a trend already evident on the Continent earlier in the 1rrh century, the function of crypts was reduced to that of raising up the eastern arm of a great church, and, particularly in a monastic church, providing more

jOHN CROOK

35

altar space. Crypts no longer fulfilled the primary, mortuary function of the structures from which they derived, and the presence of a crypt is not indicative of a saint's cult in Romanesque England. At Bury the land falls away east of the church, towards the river Lark, and one of the purposes of the crypt built by Abbot Baldwin (1065-97/8) may have been to compensate for this, as weil as to allow the raising of the presbytery by some 600 mm above the choir. The choir also provided space for at least three extra altars. The farm of the crypt was unknown until the late I950S, when M. R. James's suggestion that 'much of the crypt would be discovered' was at last realized. 5 It was known to have been dedicated, not to Edmund, but to the Blessed Virgin, during the two-year vacancy following the death of Abbot Robert II in II07.6 William Worcestre mentions this dedication, referring to 'The Crypt of the Chapel of St. Mary beneath the Shrine of St. Edmund' ('cript[aJ capelle Beate Marie subtus scrinio Sancti Edmundi'); he noted its 24 pillars and 'a very fine spring of water' ('fons pulcherimus').7 Roger Gilyard-Beer's plan of the excavation of the crypt in 1957-64 provides us with the basic scheme of the eastern arm of the church: 8 four straight bays with an apse and ambulatory and three radial chapels. Our first task must be to determine the form of the crypt piers, as this may provide a clue to the arrangement at main level. The upstanding fragments of core have clearly been encased in re-set flints in a hard, Portland cement mortar, and this may have modified their profiles. In their consolidated state the lumps of core standing above the turf of the excavated crypt suggest cylindrical piers in the straight bays and wedge-shaped piers in the turning bays of the apse hemicycle. The rectilinear form of the lowest part of the piers of the straight bays, just above the turf, might conceivably represent the robbing of square basal elements, but is more likely to have resulted from consolidation by Ministry workmen after excavation. Above this level, however, the core bears the imprint of stones set diagonally, which is consistent with the piers having been cylindrical, and this interpretation is confirmed by two other pieces of evidence. At the west end of the main crypt arcade on the north side, a huge, semicircular respond of coursed masonry was discovered in 1948,9 complete with its moulded base (PI. XIIIA); the respond measures nearly 1.80 m in diameter. lO This implies that the piers in the straight bays were also cylindrical; and this is further confirmed by the fortunate survival of a small fragment of a pier base in the second free-standing pier of the south arcade, apparently preserved because a secondary element was built up against it (Fig. I). The curvature of the pier base fragment provides the diameter of the pier which it supported: approximately 1.80 m, like the western respond. From the posi ti on of the surviving core fragments in the apse hemicycle it is clear that the apse comprised seven bays, representing a total of eight piers including the chord piers. The form of the hemicycle piers is harder to establish than that of the main arcade piers. The surviving core of the hemicycle piers seems to be wedge-shaped. This is contradicted by the apparent survival of a second fragment of moulded base against one of the apse piers on the north side (PI. XIIIB); the curvature of its inner face indicates that it derives from the apse. There are, however, indications that the fragment is not in situ. A chamfered plinth would be expected, at the same level as the plinth at the base of the crypt walls; the surviving pier bases of Baldwin's campaign, found at the crossing, have such plinths. The absence of a plinth under the base fragment supports the argument that it is ex situ; possibly it was discovered during the excavation and placed in its present position in order to indicate the hypothetical arrangement. l l More telling still is the curvature of the moulded base, which indicates

200

FIG. I.

ARCHITECTURAL SETTING OF THE CULT OF ST EDMUND

Bury St Edmunds. Abbey church. Plan and section of fragment of base of arcade pier in crypt, trapped between secondary element and surviving co re

a pier diameter of approximately I.62 m; considerably less than that of the western respond. A more plausible explanation may be therefore that the base fragment co mes from one of the presbytery piers at main level. If so, the crypt apse piers may indeed have been compound, and wedge-shaped on plan as the core fragments suggest. Two vertical scars on the west wall of the crypt (PI. XIIB) indicate that the centra I aisle was subdivided longitudinally by two rows of secondary supports; and this is confirmed by William Worcestre's observation in May 1479 that the crypt contained twenty-four columns (columpne);12 the secondary piers were presumably monolithic pillars, which explains why no core has survived - in contrast with the major supports, which were of coursed masonry. The scars of the main and secondary arcades on the west wall indicate the level of the springing of the vaulting. It is clear that the piers were unusually squat, measuring only about I.25 m from base to capital; in other words, they were wider than they were tall. They must have formed a memo ra bie feature of the crypt, and it is perhaps not surprising that William Worcestre commented on them. The plan of the crypt may therefore be established (Fig. 2) . As has often been noted,13 this plan, including the array of its piers, though not their form, was very similar to that of Abbot Scotland's abbey at St Augustine's, Canterbury, of about five years

]OHN CROOK

FIG. 2.

37

Bury St Edmunds. Abbey church. Conjectural reconstruction of plan of crypt, compared with that of St Augustine's, Canterbury

earlier. Bury is a more elongated version of the same design, and the other obvious difference is the use of circular piers at Bury rather than the compound ones at St Augustine's. THE DESIGN OF THE PRESBYTER Y

We may be confident that the plan established for the crypt is broadly valid for the presbytery, including the bay lengths and the position of the piers. The form of those piers must remain hypothetical, but if the base fragment discussed above derives from the apse at main level the hemicycle piers must have been cylindrical, as would be expected given their spacing; and the cylindrical form of the crypt piers in the straight bays mayalso have been repeated at main level (Fig. 3). Much less may be deduced about the elevation of the presbytery, for obvious reasons. However, the scar of the crypt va uiting against the west wall shows that the crown of the vault rose higher than the west wall does now; and, allowing an adequate thickness for the vault and presbytery floor, it is clear that the presbytery pavement was some 600 mm above th at of the choir. This imp lies a flight of th ree or four steps from the choir and choir aisles into the eastern arm; and the core of the bottom two steps has in fact survived in partial confirmation of this. 4

200

ARCHITECTURAL SETTING OF THE CULT OF ST EDMUND FIG. 3. Bury St Edmunds. Abbey church. Conjectural plan of eastern arm at main level

THE SHRINE OF ST EDMUND

The Position of the Shrine

Regarding the position of the shrine of St Edmund within the presbytery, there is no uncertainty; it was located behind the high altar (Fig. 4) This was the normal position for such shrines in Anglo-Norman churches, and there is no reason to doubt that it was so placed from 1095, as the Bury monk Jocelin of Brakelond tells us it was a hundred years or so later;14 an observation supported by the earliest annals of Bury.15 One detail provided by Jocelin may allow us to fix the position of the high altar and shrine more precisely. In his account of the II98 fire he mentions that a great rood beam located behind the altar (ultra altare) , which also supported reliquaries, and from which other reliquaries were suspended, had providentially been taken down and temporarily replaced by a curtain which was destroyed in the fire. This beam is most likely to have been supported on the chord piers of the apse, as shown in figure 4. A similar beam over the choir altar ('tabulam magnam super altari in choro, cum mole illa lapidea cui trabes innititur') was installed in the time of the sacrist Walter de Banham. 16 The array of tightly-spaced pi ers in the apse may have looked something like the computer reconstruction (PI. XIV A). The high altar would have been slightly west of

]OHN CROOK

FIG. 4.

39

Bury St Edmunds. Abbey church. Conjectural plan of apse, showing position of high altar and shrine of St Edmund, and beam over

the apse chord, and the head of the shrine would have been at the actual geometrie centre. The Design of the Shrine

Jocelin's account of the fire which damaged the shrine on the night of 23 June II98 is our principal souree for the detail of the shrine arrangement. 1? He teUs us that between the shrine and the high altar a wooden platform (ligneus tabulatus) had been constructed, with a space beneath it which was used by the sacrists for the storage of 'flax, thread, wax and divers utensils'. It was this wooden structure, and its inflammable contents, that were set alight by a falling candle which had been roughly cobbled together - Jocelin blames the shrine-keepers, the custodes feretri. He adds the detail that the platform had what he calls 'iron walls' Iparietes ferrei) and a door; at the time of the fire it was covered by a cloth. I infer from this that the tabulatus was a wooden structure linking the shrine to the high alt ar. The 'iron walls' we re presumably lateral grilles incorporating a door providing access to the shrine-keepers' store beneath the wooden platform, which explains Jocelin's observation that during the fire everything above and be/ow the platform heated up, to such an extent that the 'iron walls' became white-hot: ' ... ita quod parietes ferrei omnino igne candescerent'.

200

ARCHITECTURAL SETTING OF THE CULT OF ST EDMUND

It is, I think, significant that there was no separate altar attached to the west end of the shrine; the high altar itself appears to have served as the shrine altar, and the purpose of the linking platform, which was replaced in masonry after the fire, may have been to bring shrine and altar into closer association. Such fires associated with shrines were by no means uncommon. A similar disaster befelI the shrine of St Cuthbert in the 12th century, when the reliquary was miraculously saved from damage;18 and the masonry of a reliquary niche in the ambulatory at N orwich is also reddened by the effects of a similar conflagration. 19 The shrine of St Augustine, Canterbury, was damaged by fire in II68. 20 A much more serious fire at Bury caused widespread damage in 1465, though the shrine remained miraculously unscathed. 21 Jocelin of Brakelond is also the richest source of information about the form of the shrine. In an earlier passage he recounts how Abbot Samson, then a young monk, had concealed himself beneath the shrine for a considerable period of time; there nobody dared feed him, 'save by stealth,.22 The fact that Samson could thus seek refuge under the shrine suggests that it took the usual form of a hollow, supporting base surmounted by the actual reliquary, the scrinium. From Jocelin's description of Samson's examina­ tion of the body of St Edmund,23 we know that at the co re of the shrine was the wooden coffin - its lid fastened with sixteen nails - containing the supposedly incorrupt body; the body fitted so tightly within the coffin, as Jocelin says, 'both lengthwise and across, that a needIe could scarce be placed between the Saint's he ad or feet and the WOOd,.24 The coffin can hardly have been more than 6 ft. long. There was a hole in the lid to provide limited contact with the body for the select few, and iron rings at the end 'after the fashion of a Norse chest'. It sat in a kind of wooden trough (ligneus aiueoius) to protect it from the stone of the shrine-base. Around it was the outer casing, a gabled structure consisting of a wooden armature covered with silver plates, presumably repoussé work, decorated with precious stones. At the west end was a figure of Christ in Majesty. The silver plates and stones suffered considerable damage in the II98 fire and had to be repaired, but the golden Majesty was miraculously preserved. The supporting structure - the shrine-base - fulfilled an important function; it allowed the faithful to crawl under the reliquary in order to benefit from the holy power radiating from the saint's body. The practice is illustrated in the well-known 13th-century drawing of the shrine of Edward the Confessor at Westminster, from the Estoire de St JEdouard ii Rei. In that drawing a pilgrim is depicted actually within the shrine-base; it is of the type with three round portholes, a motif which I have argued may derive from the IIth-century remodelling of the tomb of Christ at Jerusalem, and which was employed for structures that I have called 'tomb-shrines' - usually erected over the tomb of a saint. 2S Such structures we re put up over the tomb of St Thomas in the crypt at Canterbury Cathedral, and extant examples are found at Salisbury (St Osmund), Whitchurch Canonicorum (Dorset) (St Wita), and Ilam (Staffs) (St Berte­ lin). All these examples possessed apertures allowing supplicants to kiss the coffin which remained in situ beneath the monument. 26 At Bury, on the other hand, the body had been moved from its original burial-place, so a 'tomb-shrine' would not have been an appropriate type of monument. I suggest that a simpler structure is more likely. It probably consisted of a slab supported on columns - the shrine of St Cuthbert inaugurated in II04 was of this type, with nine columns,z7 and so may have been the first shrine of St Thomas at Canterbury if the evidence of one of the windows in the Trinity Chapel glass is to be trusted. 28 So too may have been the 12th-century shrine-base of St Alban, depicted in a drawing attributed to Matthew Paris;29 part of its

]OHN CROOK

201

decorated slab was erroneously placed as a comice on top of the 19th-century reconstruction of the final, early I4th-century shrine but was removed in the recent restoration of the latter monument. Some late examples of this type survive on the Continent; for example, the shrine of St Phalier at Chabris, not far from Bourges - a very rustic version. Even closer, perhaps, is the shrine of Saint-Menoux, eight miles west of Moulins (Allier). Here we see many of the features which I have been describing: a shrine consisting of a stone sarcophagus raised on pillars;30 it is located within the apse hemicycIe immediately behind the high altar. At Poitiers, the shrine of St Radégonde also consists of a stone coffin raised on a decorated slab supported on three wide piers, again reminiscent of the arrangement at St Albans. Jocelin of Brakelond's account of the fire is our only source for one other interesting feature of the development of the Bury shrine. He tells us that at that time Abbot Samson was planning various alterations to the shrine; indeed, he comments that the fire 'happened, by the will of God, so that the area round the shrine might be more carefully supervised and the abbot's [i.e. Samson's] plan carried out more speedily and without delay: this was to place the shrine, with the body of the holy martyr, more safely and more spectactularly in a higher position. Before this unfortunate accident the canopy of the shrine had been half completed and the marbie blocks for raising and supporting the shrine had for the most part been prepared and polished.'31 Abbot Samson's plan for raising the shrine conforms with 12th-century practice which is weil documented elsewhere. At St Albans, for example, the reliquary containing the saint's bones was raised up behind the high altar by Abbot Simon (II66-83) so that the celebrant could see it;32 it appears to be thus illustrated in the Matthew Paris drawing already mentioned. At Winchester at a slightly earlier date (IIso-S8), Henry of Blois created within the apse, behind the high altar, a platform to support the relics of St Swithun, with a tunnel beneath it - the 'Holy Hole' - allowing limited pilgrim access. 33 All this activity seems to reflect an increased interest in the cult of saints in the 12th century; a movement which was to be given a further boost as monastic churches in particular responded to the challenge of Canterbury with its emerging cult of Becket­ it may be regarded as foreshadowing a second wave of shrine building in the early I4th century which has been weil studied by Nicola Coldstream/4 and which left its mark in the surviving examples of shrines which have been reconstructed. At Westminster in 1267-68, for example, the high shrine of Edward the Confessor was built, so that, following the hagiographical commonplace, the saint was raised on high, so that he might shed light on people entering and leaving the building. 35 The shrine depicted in the well-known illustrations from the copy of Lydgate's Life of ss Edmund and Fremund in BL MS Harley 2278 has a remodelled base of the I4th century, and conforms to the normal pattem of Decorated shrine-bases. 36 Nicholas Rogers has demonstrated that the illustration on fol. 9, one of two purporting to show the shrine in Lydgate's day, may be arealistic depiction of the shrine, and has further suggested that the two colours used may indicate that the monument then comprised a refacing of the earlier structure. 37 It is particularly interesting that round-headed blind arcading appears to be depicted at the back of the niches in the shrine-base; it is possible that elements of Abbot Samson's shrine of St Edmund still survived encased within the Decorated shrine-base. Despite its remodelling, it is clear from various contemporary accounts, published by M. R. James, that the shrine remained in exactly the same place as its Romanesque

200

ARCHITECTURAL SETTING OF THE CULT OF ST EDMUND

predecessor. By the early I3th century, when further details became available, notably in the tract on the dedication of the altars, chapels and churches at Bury St Edmunds 38 and in the Bury Customary/9 both preserved in the Liber A/bus, the shrine was evidently surrounded by a host of other relics and secondary altars. Close by, for example, was the altar dedicated to SS. Botolph, Thomas and Jurmin,40 together with their three reliquaries,41 and possibly even at this date (although documents describing it date only from the I5th century) achest containing the bones of Abbot Leofstan (d. 1044) and the supposed remains of the sacrist Egelwine, and the holy woman Oswyn, two characters who feature prominently in the Edmund legend. 42 The shrine was destroyed by Henry VIII's Commissioners in 1538; they described it as 'a rich shrine ... very cumbrous to deface' .43 Presumably the metal plates with which it was covered were stripped off and the stonework was broken up - though it would be interesting to know whether any fragments have survived, as they have at several other churches and cathedrals with major shrines. 44 The fate of the body of St Edmund is not recorded,45 but by their action the Commissioners brought to an end a cult which had started in the eastern Danelaw probably in the late 9th century, and had flourished at Beadericesworth (the later Bury St Edmunds) since the mid-Ioth century.46

REFERENCES r. Richard Sharpe, 'The setting of St Augustine's translation, 1°91', in Canterbury and the Norman Conquest. ChronicIes, Saints and Scholars, I066-no9, ed. R. Eales and R. Sharpe (London 1995). Goscelin, Historia translationis S. Augustini episcopi, Acta Sanctorum, Maii VI, ed. D. van Papenbroek (Antwerp 1688),411-43. 2. Vita Gundulfi episcopi Roffensis, auctore monacho Roffensi cocetaneo, in PL, CLIX, 813-36, at 82r. The date is uncertain, but the author of the Flores Historiarum, ed. H. R. Luard, 3 vols (RS, xcv, 189°),11,20, includes the e1evation with the events of ra88, attributing it, however, to Lanfranc. 3. Hermann,85-92. 4. The research for this paper took place within the context of my Oxford D.Phil thesis on 'The architectural setting of the cult of saints in the early medieval West, and its development in the English Romanesque'. 5. James, Ahhey, II5. For the crypt see also Heywood, 'Aspects of the Romanesque Church', above pp. 17- 1 9. 6. D. Knowies, C. N. L. Brooke, V. C. M. London, eds, The Heads ofReligious Houses. England and Wales (Cambridge 1972), 32. James, Ahhey, 147, erroneously states that Abbot Robert II died in III2. 7. William Woreestre, 160-6r. 8. Gilyard-Beer, 'Eastern Arm'. 9. 'H.J.M.M[altby, Curator of Moyses Hall Museum], 'Excavations of the Abbey ruins, Bury St Edmunds', PSIA, XXIV (1949), 256-57, at 256. ra. Enough of the base survives to show that the respond was semicircular; there was no additional rectangular element on the east side as was suggested at the BAA Bury Conference. Ir. Nevertheless, Dr Michael Thompson has kindly commented that in his view this pier base fragment was left where it was discovered during the excavation. Unfortunately there is no reference to the fragment in the only published account of the excavation: Gilyard-Beer, 'Eastern Arm'. lam grateful to Richard Gem for his comments on the archaeological record, which he investigated with Laurence Keen in preparation for their paper, 'Late Anglo-Saxon Finds from the Site of St Edmund's Abbey', PSIA, XXXV, pt 1(1981), 1-3°· 12. William Worcestre, 160. The term columpna tells us nothing about the form of the piers; Worcestre frequently uses it, and from his description of surviving buildings we can see that sometimes it referred to columns, sometimes to compound piers. 13. Gilyard-Beer, 'Eastern Arm', 260; A. B. Whittingham, Bury St Edmunds Abbey, English Heritage Guidebook (London 1992), 13. 14· JB,I06. 15. These occur as marginalia and additions in the text in a I2th-century copy of John of Worcester's ChronicIe from Bury: MS Bodley 297. An addition at the foot of p. 397 states that St Edmund's body was

]OHN CROOK

16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29.

30. 31.

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

39. 40. 41. 42.

43.

43

carried and suitably buried behind the high altar: 'retro magnum alt are [erasure] decenter reconditur': printed in Memoriais, I, 352. A new three volume edition of John ofWorcester's chronicIe, which includes the additions in MS Bodley 297 in an Appendix, is in progress: The ChronicIe of john ofWorcester, II, the Annals from 450 to L066, ed. R. R. Darlington and P. McGurk, translated by J. Bray and P. McGurk (Oxford 1995, vols land III forthcoming). As shown in the Gesta Sacristarum, 292. jB,106-16. Reginaldi monachi Dunelmensis libel/us de admirandis Beati Cuthberti virtutibus, ed. James Raine, Surtees Soc., I (1835),91-92,134 (caps. 45 and 66). C. A. Ralegh Radford, 'The Bishop's throne in Norwich Cathedra]', Arch. ]., CXVI (1959), II5-32, attributing the damage to a fire of 1463; A. B. Whittingham, 'Norwich Saxon throne', Arch. ]., CXXXVI (1979),60-68. Chronica Guillielmi Thorne, monachi S. Augustini Cantuariensis, in Historite Anglicante Scriptores decem, ed. Roger Twysden (London 1652), 1815. A description is in the 15th-century register of the abbey's hostiller (BL MS Claudius A XII, fols 189v-191v, new foliation 192V- 194V), printed in Memoriais, III, 283-87. jB,49. jB,I12-16. Interestingly, an early 12th-century illustration of the entombment of St Edmund, New York, Pierpont Morgan library MS 736, fol. 18, shows the body being placed in a strigilated sarcophagus: C. M. Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, 72-74 no. 33. J. Crook, 'The typology of early medieval shrines - a previously misidentified tomb-shrine panel from Winchester Cathedrai', Antiq. j., LXX (1990), 49-64. At Whitchurch Canonicorum the coffin of St Wita is raised above the monument, which in other ways resembles a 'tomb-shrine'. Liber de Miraculis et translationibus S. Cuthberti, cap. 20, printed in Symeonis monachi opera omnia, ed. T. Arnold, 2 vols (RS, LXXV, 1882-85), II, 360. Trinity Chapel clerestory, N.III(I), published in Madeline H. Caviness, The Early Stained Glass of Canterbury Cathedral (Princeton 1977), fig. 164. Trinity College, Dublin, MS E.i.40, fol. 61; published in Illustrations to the Life of St. Alban, ed. W. R. L. Lowe and E. F. Jacob, with descriptions by M. R. James (Oxford 1924), 50. In the Chronica Maiora, ed. H. R. Luard, 7 vols (RS, LVII, 1872-83), v, 608, Matthew Paris refers to a 'marbie tomb with marbie columns': ' ... quredam tumba marmorea cum columpnis marmoreis, qui locus et tumba dicebatur vetus tumba Santi Albani'. The present pillars are clearly modern, but the actual arrangement at Saint-Menoux may be medieval. jB, 109. The translation here is from joce/in of Brakelond, ChronicIe of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, ed. D. Greenway and J. Sayers (Oxford 1989), 96. Gesta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani, ed. H. T. Riley, 3 vols (RS, XXVIII, 1867), I, 189. J. Crook, 'St Swithun of Winchester', in Winchester Cathedral- 900 Years, ed. J. Crook (Chichester 1993),57-68 . N. Coldstream, 'Engish Decorated shrine bases', jBAA, CXXIX (1976), 15-34. The ChronicIe of Thomas Wykes, printed in Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, 5 vols (RS, XXXVI, 1864-69), IV, 226. BL MS Harley 2278. See Nicholas Rogers' article in this volume, pp. 223-24. De Dedicationibus, 114-21. Dr Gransden, ibid., xl, dates the tract to roughly the third quarter of the 12th century, with later additions. Bury Customary, 1-62. Ibid., 12. The passage describes how the abbot and prior censed 'vas cum eukaristia et magnum altare, feretrum sancti Eadmundi, cis tam reliquiarum, altare sanctorum Botulphi, Thomae et lurmini et feretra eorum.' Dr Gransden, ibid., xxxiii, dates the Customary to 1234 'or soon after'. These are mentioned also in the Gesta Sacristarum, 289. See the list of benefactors in the Kitchener's register (of c. 1425), Douai MS 553, cited James, Abbey, 181. The chest (scrinium) was placed 'inter summitatem duarum columpnarum ad pedes feretri S. Edmundi': it might have been placed on a be am spanning the two piers on the chord of the apse, but an alternative architectural arrangement cannot be ruled out. It is of course incorrect to translate scrinium as 'shrine' in this context. The box is also mentioned in the account of the fire of 1465 (see above, note 21). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, ed. J. Gairdner, XIII, pt 1 (London 1892), 66, no. 192.

ARCHITECTURAL SETTING OF THE CULT OF ST EDMUND

44

44. For example, Oxford (St Frideswide), St Albans, Ely (fragments of the shrine of St Etheldreda). At Winchester, pieces of the fin al shrine of St Swithun (dated 1476) have recently been excavated from the

dorter site. 45. I think it highly unlikely that the bones brought to England from Toulouse in 1901, which now repose in

the chapel at Arundel CastIe, are those of St Edmund. For more on this question, see Norman Scarfe, 'The Body of St Edmund', PSIA, XXXI pt 3 (1969),303-17; idem, Suffolk in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge 1986),56,57,66-70 passim; A. Gransden, 'The alleged incorruption of the Body of St Edmund, King and Martyr', Antiq. J., LXXIV (1994), 137; and Richard Gem bel ow 45-52. For the inception of the cult of St Edmund at Bury, see D. Whitelock, 'Fact and fiction in the legend of St Edmund', PSIA, XXXI pt 3 (1969), 217-33, and A. Gransden, 'The legends and traditions concerning the origins of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds', English Historical Review, C (1985), 1-24. 46. S. Ridyard, The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge 1988), 2II-33.

A Scientific Examination of

the Relics of St Edmund at Arundel Castle

By Richard Gem

(on behalf of the Arundel Scientific Committee)

with an Appendix by Tony Waldron

INTRODUCTION

The publication of the Transactions for the British Archaeological Association's conference at Bury St Edmunds provides an opportunity to place on public record the findings of a scientific research project that took place between 1990 and 1993 under the patronage of the Duke of Norfolk. The Duke has in his custody at Arundel CastIe a casket of relics claimed to be those of St Edmund of East Anglia. The relics are the property of the Archbishop of Westminster, having been donated from the basilica of Saint Sernin in Toulouse in 1901 with the intention that they should be enshrined in the newly constructed Westminster Cathedra!. Doubts as to the authenticity of the relics were expressed in the correspondence columns of The Times at the end of July and beginning of August 1901, by various writers including M. R. James: in the face of these doubts the translation to Westminster was not carried forward and the relics remained in their temporary resting pi ace at Arunde!. An article by Sir Ernest Cl arke was published in The Bury Post on 31 August 1901 (and subsequently re-printed as a pamphlet) setting out in extenso the case against the authenticity of the relics, and this largely put the seal on scholarly debate for decades to come. The case was not re-opened until 1970 when the Roman Catholic parish priest of Bury St Edmunds, Fr Bryan Houghton, published a short book St Edmund, King and Martyr in which he sought to demonstrate that a respectable historical case could be made to support the theory that the authentic relics of St Edmund had been stolen from the Abbey in 12I7 by a military detachment under the Count of Melun, and had subsequently been donated to Saint-Sernin by the French dauphin Louis (later King Louis VIII). Unfortunately the sources on which this tradition was based were of much later date: but what is certain is that as early as c. 1425 a relic list for Saint-Sernin included St Edmund among the basilica's relics. It seemed to the initiator of the project des cri bed in this paper that, whatever arguments might continue about the historical sources for the conflicting traditions at St Edmund's Abbey and at Saint-Sernin, it would be important additionally to carry out a scientific examination of the relics themselves. The intention would not be to seek to establish any particular view as to their authenticity, but rather to provide objective data on what precisely the Arundel collection comprised. With this in view a team was assembied that could carry out the necessary work in the fields of archaeology, archaeological sciences, physical anthropology and palaeo-pathology, together with conservation and photographic skills. In addition the team comprised a numb er of historians with a special interest in the historica I St Edmund, in St Edmund's Abbey and in the cult of relics. A series of interesting internal papers were produced by members of this group: one of these, the paper by Antonia Gransden on the tradition of the incorruption of St Edmund's body, has al ready been published in the Antiquaries

200

RELICS OF ST EDMUND AT ARUNDEL CASTLE

Journal (LXXIV (1994), 135-68 and Figs 1-4); it is to be hoped that the val ua bIe work of David Farmer on the cult of St Edmund at Toulouse willlikewise be published. The final Report of the scientific committee, however, deserves printing in the form in which it was submitted to the sponsors of the project, since this best represents the formal corporate view of the committee. This Report now follows (with minor editorial corrections). As an appendix thereafter, and not forming part of the text itself, is a more detailed inventory of the skelet al material compiled by Tony Waldron, who carried out the examination with Juliet Rogers. Ir will be seen that whereas this Report marks a definite stage in the study of the relics, it does not bring matters to a conclusion. To carry matters further, however, would require a detailed study of the relic collection at Toulouse: this was felt on consideration to !ie outside the terms of the current group and its sponsors. AIMS OF THE COMMITTEE

In 1901 Cardinal Vaughan obtained from the basilica of St-Sernin in Toulouse, by way of Rome, certain relics that were believed to be of St Edmund of East Anglia. The intention was that these should be enshrined in the high altar of Westminster Cathedra!. However, the controversy then initiated on the authenticity of the relics caused the enshrinement to be postponed, and the relics have remained at Arundel CastIe (their temporary resting place) until today. Interest in and controversy ab out the relics has recurred sporadically since then. The present Committee was set up not with a view to proving whether or not the relics were 'genuine', but in order: i) to find out what facts could be established by a scientific analysis of the material at Arundel; and ii) to re-assess the historical sources for the Toulouse-Arundel relics. The relics are of considerable interest in their own right for the history of Toulouse and Westminster. If it had transpired that they included any material that could be connected with the historical Edmund (died 869) it would have been of obvious interest, but was not anticipated. The fact, therefore, that the research has been inconclusive on the latter possibility has been only a side issue for the Committee. MEETINGS AND PROCEDURE OF THE COMMITTEE

Following preliminary discussions initiated in 1985, the Duke of Norfolk invited the Committee to meet for the first time on 20 November 1990, on which occasion the re!ics were removed from the vault of the Fitzalan Chapel at Arunde!. They were subsequently transferred to the Institute of Archaeology on 6 February 1991, where they we re to remain for the duration of the examina ti on, after which it was intended that they should be returned to Arunde!. The examination commenced on 20 December 1991 and was carried forward over the subsequent months. The full Committee met again at Arundel on 3 June 1992 to evaluate the preliminary results of the examination and to discuss the options for further historical research. As a result of the latter, and through the generosity of the Duke, Mr Farmer visited Toulouse in July to pursue research into the relevant historica I material that was available there. Mr Farmer and Drs Rogers and Waldron also carried out an examination of relics held to be of St Edmund at Douai Abbey. The Committee held a third meeting at Arundel on 20 November 1992. Ir was then agreed to prepare a summary report of the research carried out up to that date: this is

RICHARD GEM

47

the document now submitted. The report also outlines the possibilities that exist for further research. Minutes of the Committee meetings and copies of all working papers are deposited in the Library at Arundel CastIe. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF THE RELIC BOXES

The decayed remains of the outer and inner relic boxes were taken from Arundel to the Institute of Archaeology, London, for examination and recording under laboratory conditions. The recording was carried out by Dr Rodwell, and photography by MrLaidlaw. The French-made inner box was of oak and measured 50 x 25 x 25 cm.; it dates from 190r. It was a simple rectangular casket with a framed lid and dovetailed joints throughout. The lid was secured by four sprung catches, and in the centre was a brass carrying-handle with engraved backplate. The interior of the casket was lined with red silk. The relic collection had been placed in the cas ket with some care (PI. XVA-B). First in the box was a skull at the left-hand end; then the two halves of a pelvis and a sacrum were placed alongside, to the right. On top of these lay a selection of vertebrae and pieces of shoulder-blades and leg bones, all topped by ribs and collar bones. Over these in turn had been placed many bones from hands and feet, and an entire thigh-bone completed the ensemble. A sm all silk damask bag, white and gold, with tasselled draw-string, had been finally placed on top of the collection (PI. XIVB). The bag contained a few crumbs of wood and bone. The contents then had been covered with a layer of cotton wool, and two red silk ribbons stretched diagonally across the open casket from corner to corner. The ends of the rib bons were sealed with red wax to the internal angles of the box, and a fifth seal was placed on the intersection of the ribbons. The seal used was that of the Archbishop of Toulouse. After the lid had been positioned and the catches secured, the casket had been sealed again, this time externally. Two red siIk ribbons were wrapped about the box, from side to side, and another two from end to end. The ends and intersections of the ribbons were sealed with red wax; there was a total of twelve impressions, all from the same matrix. It is recorded that when the casket was moved in 1971 it still contained the partially legible remains of a certificate of authentification by the Archbishop of Toulouse, dated 15 June 190r. All that remained in 1991 was a piece of white card under the damask bag. The outer relic box was that made in 1971 and was considered of little interest. THE EXAMINATION OF THE SKELETAL MATERlAL

The examination was carried out by Dr Waldron and Dr Rogers and covered the main assemblage in the relic box together with the material in the damask bag, and also some relics at Douai Abbey. The ma in assemblage in the box was found to contain more than a hundred bones or bone fragments, but it was obvious they were not a coherent assemblage. The first point of interest was that a virtually intact male skull (PI. XVIA) was present (whereas another skull forming part of the Toulouse Edmund relics has remained in St Sernin).

200

RELICS OF ST EDMUND AT ARUNDEL CASTLE

A further point of interest was the presence of a complete female pelvis, to which a right femur and right tibia probably also belonged. The majority of the bones were in areasonabie condition although some showed relatively modern breaks which may have been made when the bones were put into the casket or which may have occurred in transit. Many of the bones were muddy showing that they had at one time been buried and had not been thoroughly washed before being placed in the box for transport to England. The skull had a plug of mud in the nasal cavity and a thick layer over the palate; the pelvic girdle also had a substantial covering of mud. All the bones were from adults and, judging from the state of wear on the teeth and the fact that the external cranial sutures were fusing, it seemed likely that the skull was from an individual who had been aged at least forty-five years at death. Both sexes were represented in the assemblage, as mentioned above. Apart from those bones, however, it was not possible to say which of the others were from males and which from females except for two clavicles which, on the basis of measurements, were feit to have come from a male and a female. During the examination the bones were matched as far as possible in order to see how many individuals were represented. The matching which was achieved was not very extensive and it is evident that the bones came from many individuals. The minimum number is twelve, which is the number of metatarsals present; since none of these could be matched together they must have co me from separate individuals. The minimum number, however, rests on the assumption that all other bones were contributed by these twelve individuals and this is most unlikely to be the case. The 'true' number in this assemblage is certainly considerably greater than twelve but there is no means by which we can ascertain the number. The silk damask purse contained fourteen discrete objects, all but four of which appeared to be wooden. The remaining four were bone but could not be identified anatomically. The Douai Abbey relics consisted of three teeth and a fragment of long bone. The teeth had come to Douai via Fr Bryan Houghton, having been extracted from the skull at Toulouse in 1966: they comprised two mol ars and one premolar, from a left mandible. The state of wear on the molars indicated that they had probably come from an individual of about 35-45 years of age. The wear pattern on the teeth was consistent with them all having co me from the same individual: it contrasted with the wear pattern on the teeth in the Arundel skull, which were from a much older person. The long-bone fragment was contained in a brass reliquary and was about 2 cm in length: it was a fragment from the distal end of the ulna. There is no uina in the Arundel collection and so we have no match for it. Ir is certainly from an adult human but we cannot teil the sex of the individual from whom it came. Comparison with the Toulouse catalogues. There are two catalogues of the relics of St Edmund in Toulouse, one prepared in 1644 and one in 1901. The 1644 catalogue describes a skeleton which is virtually complete except for the left radius, both fibulae and the sternum. The 1901 catalogue shows a number of changes from that of 1644. At the later date the right hand and forearm, and the left ulna were no longer present, one patelIa had been lost and a part of the left femur and tibia. By contrast the sternum, the left radius and right fibula were now accounted for (see tabie). It is difficult to match the bones in the Arundel collection to those in the two catalogues, but clearly some of the bones in the 1901 catalogue could be represented as indicated in the tabie; although this number would diminish somewhat if it is assumed

RICHARD GEM

49

TABLE I

Correspondence between 1644 catalogue of relics in Toulouse, 1901 catalogue of relics in Toulouse, bones found in Arundel assemblage and at Douai Abbey.

Anatomical element

r644

190 r

Arundel

Skull

Complete with 3 teeth With 16 teeth

Complete

Complete with 3 teeth

Mandible Loose teeth

DouaiAbbey

With 7 teeth 2 molars, I

Vertebrae

24

6 cervical,

8 thoracic and lumbar

Sacrum Pelvis

I

I

?2

I

Sternum and ribs

53 pieces of rib

Complete thoracic cage

Clavicle

2

2

Scapula

7 pleces

Humerus

2

Radius Ulna Wrist

Right in 3 pieces, 5 fragments, fragment of left 3 left, 2 right Left and fragment Distal right of right Ileft

2 (I incomplete)

I 10 carpals, 16 little bones of

Hand

the wrist 30 phalanges

Femur

2, plus 6 pieces in

a piece of white linen Patella Tibia Fibula Ankle Foot

complete

I complete (female) Body of sternum, 40 ribs or rib fragments 3 fragments, 2 left, I right

Distal fragment Complete left hand

I carpal

Complete left hand Right and distal left

I I metacarpals, 5 phalanges I right complete, I distal right

Right and proximalleft Right Left foot Left foot

2 right, 2 left

2 2 broken

14 tarsals 2 metatarsals, 10 toes

premolar

7 cervical, 3 thoracic, slumbar

I right, I left 7 tarsals 12 metatarsals, 3 phalanges

5°

RELICS OF ST EDMUND AT ARUNDEL CASTLE

that the bones in the 1901 catalogue were from a single individual. In that case, for example, the skull and the pelvic girdle could not both be in the 1901 catalogue. Conclusions and Suggestions. The Arundel assemblage is a mixed collection of bones from several individuals of both sexes and we are unable to assign an archaeological age to any. Whereas it is likely, on the historical evidence, that some of the bones formed part of the relics which were attributed to St Edmund at Toulouse; we cannot say on anthropological evidence which these might be without an examination of the bones which are held in Toulouse to this day. In order to progress further with the investigation of the relics it would be necessary to view the bones still in Toulouse in order to see how they compare with the 1901 catalogue. This might allow us to determine which we re probably sent to England, and also to see whether any could be matched with the Arundel material. To determine the date of any bones in the Arundel collection would require radio­ carbon (C H ) dating. This is a destructive process but can now be carried out on small bone samples; it is also costly and would require careful selection of samples. We do not recommend such testing without examination of the relics in Toulouse having been carried out first in order to assess better which are the possibly significant bones within the Arundel assemblage. Finally, it would be of value to continue efforts to locate any further relics possibly of St Edmund in Britain and to examine them to see how they relate to those which we have examined already. OTHER SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Under Professor Pollard an examination was made for the presence of any other organic remains in the casket. None were found except for insect remains, which were reported on by Dr Nicholson and Mr Kenward of the University of York: the remains were considered to be recent. HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Dr Gransden undertook for the Committee an analysis of the historica I sources relating to the tradition of the incorruption of St Edmund's body in the abbey church of Bury St Edmunds, the last formal inspection of which took pIace in II98. Mr Farmer has undertaken research into the traditions surrounding the relics at Toulouse claimed to be those of St Edmund. According to later Toulouse tradition the relics had been taken from England by the French prince Louis whose troops campaigned in East Anglia and Lincolnshire in 1217. Louis, it was said, subsequently gave the relics of St Edmund and of St Gilbert of Sempringham to the basilica of Saint­ Sernin de Toulouse, which was an important pilgrimage church. The Toulouse relics of St Gilbert, it seems clear, we re wrongly identified in the I7th century with Gilbert of Sempringham (the only Gilbert then found in the Roman Martyrology). In fact iconographic evidence points to the Toulouse Gilbert as a Cistercian abbot who died in Toulouse in rr67 and was venerated there as a saint before and after his relics (or most of them) were buried at Citeaux. The removal of Gilbert of Sempringham's relics from the Toulouse picture takes away what might have been astrong piece of supporting evidence for a translation of relics from eastern England by prince Louis in the 13th century.

RICHARD GEM

201

The St Edmund tradition at Toulouse, however, cannot be summarily dismissed. Mention of the relics of St Edmund is made in an early Isth-century list of relics at Saint-Sernin written in a Rodez breviary. Despite this, an examination of twenty-seven medieval liturgical manuscripts of and at Toulouse - calendars, missais, breviaries and even books of hours - failed to reveal a single entry recording his feast. There seems no hard evidence, therefore, of Edmund's cult (as distinct from the claim to possess his relics) in medieval Toulouse. It must however be recognized that the liturgical records of Saint-Sernin itself, the most likely centre of such a cult, have perished. Around 1540 an image of St Edmund was painted alongside other heavenly protectors of Toulouse in the choir of the church of Saint-Sernin. It was in the I6th century also that the tradition of Louis giving Edmund's relics to Toulouse found its first surviving written expression. It was claimed that Edmund's cult was 'immemorial' (which it was in England and some Norman monasteries): but, as indicated above, there is no surviving evidence for this - yet again it should be stressed that the medievallibrary of Saint-Sernin is lost, and with it any historical evidence it may have held. When we turn to the I7th century, the evidence of St Edmund's cult is as abundant as it was sparse during earlier periods. The saint's new celebrity in the I7th century was due to his being invoked as the city's protector in the crisis caused by the Plague, which devastated Toulouse four years running, from 1628 to I63I. In 1631 the Town Council (capitouls) voted the considerable sum of 4,000 livres for providing a shrine for the neglected St Edmund in anticipation of his intercession in delivering the city. The shrine was made in 1644 (its design survives) and the relics were then catalogued and translated. An octave of celebrations from 13 to 20 November 1644 was instituted by the Archbishop and thereafter the cult was firmly established on 20 November, as attested by many books. When the Revolution came to Toulouse, its destructive effects we re less grievous than in some other towns. The shrines were despoiled of their gold and silver, but the bones themselves were left intact. The relics were placed safely in cup boards under locks and seals. After the Revolution, inspection documents were issued, the relics were restored and the cults continued. In 1874 Cardinal Manning asked for and obtained some of the Toulouse relics of St Edmund, described as being of the scapula and groin (iliacis): but their present whereabouts is unknown. Twenty-seven years later a new catalogue of the relics was made, preceding the despatch from Toulouse to Rome of some part of them intended for Westminster Cathedral (requested by Cardinal Vaughan but obtained only after the intervention of Pope Leo XIII): no list is known to have survived in Toulouse indicating how the relics had been partitioned. In 1966 at the request of Fr Bryan Houghton the teeth now at Douai Abbey were extracted from the skull remaining at Saint-Sernin, in the presence of M. Maurice Prim, conservateur at the Jacobins. The controversy of 1901 about the authenticity of the relics led to the establishment of a Commission by the Archbishop of Toulouse. The Commission came down in favour of the authenticity of the Toulouse relics, partly because there was no evidence for the continued existence of St Edmund's body at Bury St Edmunds in the late Middle Ages; and partly because the riyal tradition at Toulouse was of long standing, certainly dating to weil before the dissolution of the monasteries in England. The Commission testified that une partie considérable of the body has been sent to England via Rome, but no new examination of the bones was made by the Commission (nor has any been

200

RELICS OF ST EDMUND AT ARUNDEL CASTLE

made subsequently). Later historical research has been divided on the authenticity of the Toulouse tradition, but it has been supported by R. Folz (Festschrift für H. Lowe, Cologne I978). More could be done at Toulouse to pursue the study of the fabric of the building insofar as this relates to the setting of the cult and, in particular, its location in the crypt in the Middle Ages. This might help fill same of the lacunae in the documentary evidence for the development of the cult prior to the I7th century. But, as we have said above, the main prerequisite for making progress would be a new examination of the Toulouse relics themselves. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I. The

Committee has been able to conclude that the relics at Arundel were sealed into a casket at Toulouse in I901 befare their dispatch to Rome and on to England. The document which mayonee have listed the relics in the casket does not survive. 2. The relics in the Arundel casket represent a minimum of twelve individual skeletons, and almast certainly more, of bath male and female sex. Same of the bones had mud on them deriving from a peri ad of burial in the ground. 3. A skull is present in the Arundel relics and another skull remains among the Edmund relics in Toulouse. The teeth at Douai Abbey came from the Toulouse relics in 1966 and they do not relate to those of the skull in the Arundel assemblage. 4. It would be necessary to carry out an examination of the remaining relics of St Edmund in Toulouse to clarify their relationship to any part of the Arundel material and to the skeleton as catalogued in the Toulouse inventories of 1644 and 190 I. s. We have not undertaken any dating tests on the Arundel bones, and we do not consider that this would be worthwhile until such time as the relationship of the Arundel and Toulouse material has been examined further. 6. The evidence for the presence of relics claimed as those of St Edmund in Toulouse in the Isth century is indubitable, but documentary evidence does not exist earlier. We suggest that a more detailed study of the architectural setting of the cult at Toulouse might possibly throw further light. 7. From the enshrinement of the Toulouse relics in 1644 until the present there is reasonably clear evidence for a continuity in identifying the claimed relics of St Edmund at St-Sernin; but, as we say above, we cannot yet positively identify these with any of the several individuals represented in the Arundel relics. 8. We would not wish to jump to any conclusions as to what happened in 190I without assembling the complete evidence as far as possible. We would assume that everyone acted in good faith unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. We would also assume the possibility that relics other than those identified as of St Edmund could have been added to the Toulouse gift from the extensive relic collection at St-Sernin. 9. We have reached na conclusion sa far on whether any part of the Arundel material might relate to the historical King Edmund; the chances of being able to do this on scientific or historical grounds are, in any case, slim. 10. The Committee would be willing to continue research into these problems if invited to do sa, and if the authorities in Toulouse would be willing to participate.

RICHARD GEM

53

APPENDIX INVENTORY OF SKELETAL REMAlNS

Skull. Male, and complete ex cept for the loss of both zygomatic arches. Length 182 mm, breadth 129 mm, circumference 504 mmo All but three teeth have been lost during life; those remaining are the right upper second premolar and the right upper first and second molars. The right upper third mol ar has not erupted but can be seen on a radiograph of the skull. The three teeth which are present are extremely wom and the extemal cranial sutures are fusing suggesting that the individual was in middle life at the time of his death (probably at least 45 years of age). The skull had mud over the surface, and was especially thick over the palate; the nasal cavity is plugged with mud. 2. Sternum. Complete body.

3. Scapula. There are five fragments of scapula.

1. The articular end of a left scapula with most of the glenoid. The coracoid and the base of the acromion are also present; this fragment was muddy. 2. A fragment of the left glenoid which does not belong to 3. I. 3. The lower angle of a left scapula showing a recent break. Muddy. 4. A fragment of the spine of a right scapula; muddy. 5. The lower angle of a right scapula, almost certainly not a pair with 3-3- Muddy.

4. Clavicle. Three clavicular fragments are present.

1. The lateral two-thirds of aleft; slightly muddy. Probably male. 2. Lateral fifth of a left. 3. Gracile right clavicle, length 133 mm; virtually complete except for the loss of both articular surfaces. Probably female.

5. Vertebrae. Seven cervical, three thoracic and four lu mbar.

1. Left lamina of the third or fourth cervical. Muddy. 2. Complete axis; muddy. 3. Complete fourth and fifth cervical; muddy. 4. Another complete fourth or fifth cervical; muddy and probably from a different individu al than5·3· 5. A complete sixth or seventh cervical with some red silk attached to the inferior surface. May belong to 5.2. 6. A sixth or seventh cervical, complete except for the spinous process. Muddy. 7. A complete seventh cervical; muddy. 8. A third or fourth thoracic; muddy. Lacks the spinous process. 9. A fourth or fifth thoracic lacking the spinous process, both transverse processes and an anterior portion of the body. Muddy. Contiguous with 5.8. 10. A twelfth thoracic, muddy and complete. I I. A first lu mbar, lacking the spinous process and the anterior part of the body. Muddy. 12. A first lu mbar, lacking the spinous process and both transverse processes. Muddy. 13. Second lumbar. The right lamina is missing as are the left inferior facet joint and the left transverse process. The body is damaged. Muddy. Probably goes with 5.12. 14. A fifth lu mbar with slight damage to the transverse processes. Muddy. 6. Pelvic girdle. Complete female pelvic girdle comprising both inominates (both lacking the pubic bone), a sacrum and a fifth lumbar vertebra. All muddy. There is some red siIk attached to both iliac crests and both ischial tuberosities. 7. Humerus. Distal quarter of right.

8. Carpals. A single, complete hamate.

9. Metacarpals. There are eleven present.

1. A complete left second. Muddy. Length 72 mmo 2. Complete left second; length 69 mmo 3. Proximal two thirds of a left second. Muddy. 4. Complete left third; length 70 mmo 1.

54

RELICS OF ST EDMUND AT ARUNDEL CASTLE

5. Left fifth; length 54 mmo 6. Complete right first. Muddy. Length 49 mmo 7. Another complete right first with some red siIk adherent. Length 48 mmo 8. Proximal two-thirds of a right second with a fragment of red silk attached to the distal end. 9. Right third with slight damage to the head. Muddy. Length 70 mmo

IO. Complete right fifth; length 54 mmo May belong with 9.5.

II. Mid shaft fragment of a right fifth. IO. Phalanges of the hand. Five were present, two paired and th ree unpaired. I. A right and left first proximal, both 35 mm in length. 2. Three proximal, one muddy. The muddy bone has a spicule of red silk attached. The lengths of the clean bones are 36 and 42 mm; the length of the muddy bone is 43 mmo II. Femur. Two femurs are represented. I. A right, complete except for a break in the lateral surface of the shaft about two thirds of the way down. There is a sealing wax stain on the medial surface of the distal shaft. Muddy. Maximum length = 486 mm; diameter of the head = 45 mmo Probably from a female and could belong with the pelvic girdle. 2. Distal end of right; muddy. 12. Tibia. Four tibias were present. I. Proximal two thirds of a right with adherent fragments of red silk; muddy. Probably belongs with femur ILI (and hence also to the pelvic girdle). 2. Postero-medial fragment of right medial plateau; muddy. 3. Proximal fragment of left; not a pair with 12.1. 4. Fragment of distal end of a left with a sealing wax stain. May belong with 12.3. 13. Fibula. There were two. I. Complete right with fragments of red silk attached. Muddy. Maximum length 361 mmo Does not belong with 12.I. 2. A left, lacking the proximal articulation. Muddy and with fragments of red silk attached. Not a pair with 13.I. 14. Tarsals. Seven tarsal bones were present. I. Complete right cuboid. 2. Another complete right cuboid. 3. A left cuboid; muddy. 4. Fragment of a left cuboid. None of the cuboids belongs with another. 5. Smalt fragment of a left calcaneum. 6. Left navicular. 7. Left medial cuneiform. IS. Metatarsals. There was a total of twelve, none matching. I. A right first; muddy. Length 66 mmo 2. Another right first; Length 64 mmo 3. Left first; muddy. Length 65 mmo 4. Another left first; length 64 mmo 5. A right second, length 76 mmo 6. A left second, length 81 mmo 7. Proximal two thirds of a left second. 8. A right third with some damage to the head. Muddy. Length 68 mmo 9. Proximal half of a right third.

IO. A left third, length 74 mmo

I I. Left fourth; length 66 mmo

12. Another left fourth; length 70 mmo 16. Phalanges of the foot. There were three. I. Right first proximal; length 40 mmo 2. Left first proximal; probably a pair with 16.I. Length 40 mmo

RICHARD GEM

55

3. A second, third or fourth proximal. 17. Ribs. There were forty ribs or rib fragments, all muddy. I. Two right first. 2. A right second. 3. Fifteen right shaft fragments. 4. One right shaft fragment with sealing wax stains. 5. Two right anterior ends. 6. Sixteen left shaft fragments. 7. Three left anterior ends. PATHOLOGY

For so small a collection of bones there was a surprising amount of pathology. Perhaps the most interesting was in the female pelvis which showed the presence of spondylolysis of the fifth lumbar vertebra in association with spina bifida of the sacrum. Spondylolysis is a condition in which the lamina of one vertebrae (usual!y the fifth lumbar, as here) becomes detached from the body as the result of a fracture through the pars interarticularis. It is general!y considered to be a form of stress fracture consequent upon some trauma to the spine encountered during late childhood. Spin a bifida results from a failure of the posterior segments of the sacrum to fuse as they do during normal development. It is wel! known that these two conditions may occur together although it is a rather rare combination. In the absence of some complication it is unusual for either condition to produce clinical symptoms and in the present case, it is unlikely that this lady was aware of her anatomical abnormalities during her life time. A number of other vertebrae in the assemblage showed some minor pathological changes including the development of marginal osteophytes (on three cervical and one thoracic vertebrae) while the axis vertebra present had a smal! osteophyte on the odontoid peg. The lumbar vertebrae with spondylolysis also had some marginal osteophyte. One of the cervical vertebrae (5.5 in the Inventory) showed evidence of intervertebral disk disease and one of the thoracic vertebrae (10.10) showed the presence of a Schmorl's node. These are both extremely common findings in skeletal remains and except perhaps for the disk disease would probably not have produced any symptoms during life. Along the rim of the pelvis there was also some osteophytosis and there were the beginnings of new bone formation into the superior fibres of the anterior sacro-spinal ligaments on both sides. Once again, these are very common observations in skeletal material. Another extremely common condition in skeletal remains is osteoarthritis and we have found this on one of the left first metatarsal heads (15.4). There were two areas of eburnation on the inferior part of the distal joint surface of this bone, associated with marginal osteophytes. Another much more interesting condition was found in one of the first proximal phalanges of the foot. In this bone there was an erosion on the inferior margin of the proximal articular surface with sharp, undercut margins. A hole was present on the inferior surface of the bone connecting with the main marginal lesion. These appearances are strongly suggestive of gout, a disease which is only infrequently encountered in palaeopathological material. The skul! showed evidence of dental disease; seven of the upper teeth had been lost at some time during life as the result either of gum or tooth disease, and there was a large abscess cavity around the left upper canine and first premolar, both of which had been shed during life. Two of the three teeth which were still present had caries at the interstitial enamel-cementum junction. Final!y, one of the rib fragments had a fusiform swel!ing on it, typical of the appearances produced by a healed fracture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Members of the Committee: His Grace, the Duke of Norfolk (Chairman), Mr David Farmer (University of Reading), Dr Richard Gem (Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England), Dr Antonia

200

RELICS OF ST EDMUND AT ARUNDEL CASTLE

Gransden (University of Nottingham, retired), Dr Simon Keynes (University of Cambridge), Prof Mark Pollard (University of Bradford), Dr John Martin Robinson (Arundel CastIe Library), Dr Warwiek Rodwell (Downside), Dr Juliet Rogers (University of Bristol) and Dr Tony Waldron (University College London and St Mary's HospitaI). Mrs Sara Rodger kindly acted as Secretary to the Committee. The Committee is grateful to the following for their further advice and assistance: Mr K. H. Kenward, Dr R. A. Nicholson, Dr Elizabeth Pye, Miss Pamela Taylor and Mr Stuart Laidlaw. Additionally the Committee would like to express its best thanks to the Institute of Archaeology at University College London for providing facilities for the examination of the relics to take place there.

The Saint Edmund Cycle in the Crypt at Saint-Denis By Pamela

z. Blum

This article provides an iconograpical study of a cycle of eight capitals in the crypt of the abbey church of Saint-Denis based on the legend of St Edmund, king and martyr. The capitals were in place by I I June II44, the documented date of the consecration of Abbot Suger's crypt and choir. The historical king of the East Angles was martyred in 869 by the Danish invaders. Over a century later, between 985 and 987, Abbo of Fleury wrote the Passo Sancti Eadmundi to preserve for posterity the story of the martyrdom as told in his presence by Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury. Dunstan had heard it at first hand from the king's armour bearer. All but two of the capitals depend on this first written vers ion of the legend. The cycle, however, begins and ends with two scenes derived from later, more developed versions of the legend. Like the Benedict cycle in the crypt, the Edmund cycle includes Biblical events that were introduced by the author as apt metaphors to enhance the reader's understanding of Edmund's saintliness. The Biblical scenes give visual expression to metaphors Abbo used with reference to the saint's martyrdom and his first posthumous miracle. Two of the other six capitais, now lost, are known only from 19th-century drawings. All the surviving capitals have suffered damage, and throughout the cycle, surface erosion has severely diminished the clarity of detail. Since the cycle has no known parallels or prototypes in French or English sculptural programmes, reasons are suggested why a cycle based on the legend of this Anglo­ Saxon saint was included in the crypt at Saint-Denis. In the I2th-century, under Abbot Suger's patronage, the abbey church of Saint-Denis was extended first to the west and then to the east in two building campaigns. In the second one, the 9th-century semi-subterranean crypt, an ecclesia triplex, underwent extensive alterations. The addition of a double ambulatory and seven radiating chapels reflected the plan of the new choir to be built above (Fig. I). Blind arcades with historiated capitaIs were applied to the walls of the centraI chapel, the side aisles, and also along the passageway at the west connecting the north and south aisles. The dedication of Suger's crypt and choir took place on lIJ une II44. Nearly a century later, the crypt underwent modifications to strengthen the footing for a new I3th-century choir. The alterations ineluded increasing the thickness and bearing potentialof the north wall of the south aisle by adding masonry. But before sealing in the arcade, all the capitals were dismounted. 1 Because of that change and later modifications in the crypt in the I7th and I9th centuries, about one third of the original capitaIs have been lost. Most of the thirty-nine that survive constitute four discreet cyeles, although probably none of them is complete. 2 Yet speculation about the content of lost capitals has proved futile. The longest cyele consists of Old and New Testament scenes that together express the theme of Sin and Salvation;3 the second is based on the life and miraeles of St Benedict;4 the third depicts posthumous miraeles of St Denis, particularly those linking the abbey and its patron saint with the monarchy, and the fourth contains eight scenes from the legend of St Edmund. The cyele has no known prototypes in French or English

200

FIG.!.

THE ST EDMUND CYCLE IN THE CRYPT AT SAINT-DENIS

Plan of 12th-century crypt at Saint-Denis (Photo: After S. MeK. Crosby, Royal Abbey of

Saint-Denis from its Beginnings to the Death ofSuger, 475-IIJI, ed. P. Z. Blum

New Haven, CT, 1987), detail of PI. 18. © Yale University Press

sculpture, nor did it derive from the extensive pictorial cycle in the Miracula et Passio Sancti Eadmundi (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library MS 736), written and illustrated at Bury St Edmunds and dated from c. II24-25 to c. II30.5 Instead, one senses invention in the depiction of the legend in the absence of pictorial models to inform the images. During the several disastrous 19th-century campaigns of restoration in the crypt, many capitals were dismounted, some we re lost, and others went to Paris for display in Alexandre Lenoir's Musée des Monuments français. 6 On the suppression of the museum in 1816, they were returned to the abbey? Thereafter, many of the surviving capitals were mindlessly reinstalled, with scant attention to their 12th-century arrangement. Others still in their original places along the outer walls of the aisles were savagely recut in 1813.8 The Edmund cycle was so thoroughly scrambled that the originallocation of most of the capitals is impossible to reconstruct. Today we know two of the series only from 19th-century prints and drawings; others may have disappeared without trace. Another badly mutilated, previously unidentified capital turned up in the lapidary depot of the basilica.

PAMELA Z. BLUM

59

The first capital recognized as part of the legend of St Edmund shows a head being carried in proces sion (PI. XVIIA-C). Scholars had supposed that the capital represented the severed he ad of St Denis, the patron saint of the abbey, who was tortured and beheaded in AD 250.9 Yet the imagery of the scene disallows that interpretation. Nothing in the saint's legend explains the animal following the procession, the stylized foliage representing woodlands, or the crown set low on the brow of the head. Those details identify the capital as the procession carrying the head of King Edmund from the woods where the Danish conquerors had hidden it. As in the legend, a wolf is following the procession. Although the scene was the first of the St Edmund capitals identified, it is the penultimate one in the series and like most of the capitais, illustrates the first written version of saint's legend set down by Abbo of Fleury (934-10°4) in the late IOth century.10 Only two of the eight capitaIs depict later embellishments to the legend. l l A legend arose around the historical figure of Edmund whom the Danish invaders killed in 869 AD. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that the Danes invaded East Anglia, took up winter quarters at Thetford, and that King Edmund fought against them. 'The Danes had the victory ... killed the king and conquered all the land. ,12 Only a later version of the Chronicle that postdated the Conquest named Inguar (Hinguar) and Ubba as their leadersY Over a hundred years elapsed before Abbo wrote the first literary account of Edmund's martyrdom, the Passio Sancti Eadmundi. Written probably between 985 and 987 and dedicated to Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury, the Passio recorded the story of Edmund's martyrdom as told by Dunstan in Abbo's presence. According to Dunstan, when he was a youth at the court of King Athelstan (925-4°), he, in turn, had heard the story told by a very old man who claimed to have been Edmund's armour bearer on the day of his death. Abbo characterized Edmund as a wise and virtuous Christian, endowed with dove­ like 'gentleness and simplicity' and the 'wariness and sagacity of a serpent.'14 In contrast, Hinguar and Ubba, the Danish leaders, were 'hardened with the stiff frost of their own wickedness. ,15 Abbo asserted that they had first landed with their army in Northumbria. Then leaving Ubba in charge in the north, Hinguar sailed with a great fleet to East Anglia and launched a sudden attack. Although the Danes overran, sacked and set fire to a city, and slaughtered its inhabitants, Edmund, a pure and true Christian, never engaged the Danes in battle. Hinguar learned from stragglers that Edmund was at a place called Haegelisdun close to a forest of the same name. Having cut off Edmund from his defending force, Hinguar dispatched a messenger with harsh terms of submission commanding Edmund to share his treasure and his sovereign power. The king consulted a bishop who, seeing the hopelessness of the situation, counselled capitulation on the Dane's terms and urged flight to avoid certain death. But grief stricken over his slaughtered people, Edmund had no will to survive them and sent a defiant answer. 16 Infuriated, Hinguar hastened to the palace and ordered his soldiers to seize Edmund. Unresisting and unarmed, the king was bound in chains and made 'to stand before the impious general, like Christ before the governor Pilate ... [andJ was mocked in many ways.>17 Although tied to a tree and brutally beaten, Edmund remained steadfast as he called on Christ. After comparing Edmund to Christ before Pilate and the scourging to Christ's Passion, Abbo described the king's death as a sacrifice for his people and a consummation of his faith. Angered by the king's refusal to capitulate, the Danes next used Edmund as a target. Pierced with arrows, he 'actually bristled with them like a prickly hedgehog or a thistle fretted with spines,' a martyrdom, as Abbo pointed out, like that of St Sebastian. IS Finally, realizing that nothing would break Edmund's

60

THE ST EDMUND CYCLE IN THE CRYPT AT SAINT-DENIS

resolve, Hinguar ordered the king beheaded. 'And thus,' wrote Abbo, 'On 20 November, as a most pleasing offering to God, Edmund, king and martyr, ... with the palm of victory and the crown of righteousness, entered the court of heaven.'19 The Danes left the mutilated body where it feIl. But to thwart a proper Christian burial, they took his he ad into the Haegelisdun wood and hid it in a thicket of brambles. A Christian saw them enter the wood, but knew not what had become of the head. 20 Later, when the area became safe, Christian survivors searched the woods. Eventually, as searchers were calling, 'Where are you?' they heard the repeated cry, 'Here! Here! Here!' which drew them to the thicket. Miraculously, a voice had issued from the head, thus, Abbo commented, 'displaying the power of Him who was born of the Word, and [had] endowed the braying ass with human speech ... [to rebuke] the madness of the prophet [Balaam]'.21 A second miracle greeted the searchers wh en they entered the thicket. There they found the head protected by a most unusual guardian. A 'monstrous wolf ... was embracing the holy head between its paws.'22 Praising the Lord with song, the searchers picked up the head and carried it to the pi ace where the body lay. The wolf docilely followed the procession as far as the site of entombment, then disappeared forever into the woods. The rescuers, having reunited the he ad and body, placed them in a sepulchre and erected a rustic wooden chapel over the tomb. It is against the background of this legend that we can reconstruct the St Edmund cycle. The capital in question (PI. XVIIA-c) conflates events that occurred over a span of time. The foliate forms symbolize the woods from which the rescuers and the wolf are emerging with the king's head, whereas the crucifer, asperger, and the thurifer who stands in the entrance of the small building on the far right, depict the translation of the saint either into the simp Ie chapel or into the first church. The many miracles that occurred at Edmund's tomb prompted the inhabitants of the area to build a fine church in his honour. They chose the royal vill ca lIed Bedricesgueord (later Bury St Edmunds) as its site. At the time of translation into the new church, Edmund's body was found to be uncorrupted, the head and body reunited, with no trace of a wound or scar; only a thin red crease around his neck remained as a symbol of his martyrdom. Although the cycle depended primarily on Abbo's account of the martyrdom, the first capital chronologically does not (PI. XVIID-F). It shows Hinguar, Ubba and their father, King Lothbroc, in their northern abode. Events that preceded and provided a motive for the Danish invasion were first included in the I2th-century account, De Infantia Sancti Eadmundi, by Gaufridus de Fontibus. 23 He dedicated the work to Ording, abbot of Bury St Edmunds (II48-S6), which dates the work to his abbacy. We learn from the prologue that the author, a Thetford resident, frequently exchanged visits with the monks of the abbey.24 Because in conversation he recounted aspects of the legend not generally known, he was persuaded to write them down. Since Gaufridus wrote after the II44 dedication of the Saint-Denis crypt, we can propose that an earl ier version of the legend, now lost, was known at Saint-Denis which must have informed the iconography of the capital depicting the Danes in their native land. Among his many embellishments of the legend, Gaufridus supplied a motive for the Danes invasion. According to him, King Edmund's renown as a wise and powerful ruler had reached Denmark. King Lothbroc, a scoundrel, had belittled his sans, Hinguar and Ubba, when they bragged of their wicked and bloody exploits. 25 Taunting them as Edmund's inferiors, he reminded them that Edmund had arrived in East Anglia from Saxony with only a handful of followers and easily brought all East Anglia under his authority. Shamed and consumed with envy, the sons plotted to invade and attack the island, and destroy Edmund and his subjects.

PAMELA Z. BLUM

6r

On the right of the capital (PI. XVIIF), Lothbroc is seated on a spindled arm chair. Crowned and wearing a mande, he leans forward as if goaded by the anima I at his back. Facing away, the rampant beast behind him squats on his haunches, his huge front paws raised before him, this thick tail curled around his body. He stretches his inordinately long neck over his right shoulder, until the enlarged nostrils of his snout nearly touch the king's shoulder. The beast, a symbol of evil counsel, is prodding Lothbroc to inflame his sons with envy and murderous intentions. Such monsters frequendy occur as agents inciting evil acts. We find another example nearby in the Saint-Denis crypt, on the capita I depicting the murder of Abel, where a disembodied bestial he ad hovers behind Cain. On the front face of the Lothbroc capital (PI. XVIIE), nearly naked and holding his sword above his head with both hands, one son is squatting as if to defecate, his only clothing the fur pelts that cover his shoulders. His vulgar pose, the animal skins, and the sword held aloft suggest the barbarous and warlike nature of the son. This figure probably should be identified as Hinguar, the son responsible for Edmund's death. On the left (PI. XVIID), the other son Ubba emerges from a forest signified by the large tree with stylized foliage. Over his shoulder, he carries a stick or weapon, presumably an axe, but damage prevents a sure identification. Although Gaufridus described Ubba as a ferocious warrior who used magic to defeat his foes, the capital characterizes him as a rough woodsman or hunter. We know the subject of the second capital in the sequence, now lost, from an unsigned 19th-century pen and wash drawing preserved in the Louvre (PI. XVIB)26 and from engravings based on the drawing which reverse the images (Fig. 2).27 Combining real and imaginary details, the views depict an idealized arrangement of the interior of the centra I chapel where François Debret, one of the 19th-century architects in charge of restorations, had installed the tombs of the kings of France on rows of iron trestles along the walls. The capital under consideration, second from the left in the drawing, second from the right in the engraving, depicts two Viking warships afloat. Although several of the capitals in the view may be inventions, at least seven, simplified and reduced in scale, represent existing capitals. Among them, for example, third from the front in the engraving, we find a detail of a king and queen seated under arches; next, Lazarus in Abraham's bosom; then a detail of the magi of the Adoration capital; followed by the Evangelists seated under an arcade. Given this evidence, we propose that the second capitaion the right depicting Viking warships was based on a lost capital representing the Danish fleet on the way to East Anglia. Such a subject would be inconceivable as an invention by the 19th-century artist for this idealized view into the crypt, especially since none of the capitals comprising the three non-Biblical cycles had th en been recognized. In the Passio et Miracula Sancti Eadmundi, Pierpont Morgan MS 736 (PI. XVIII), a more elaborate depiction of Hinguar's fleet approaching East Anglia adds credence to the warships as part of the Edmund cycle. One may reasonably suppose that the 19th-century drawing was based on some vestiges of a capita I then extant. If so, the scene depended on Abbo's account of the invasion, not on the Anglo­ Saxon Chronicle. The third capital apparently belonging to the cycle has had various interpretations (PI. XXA-C). Albert Lenoir's 19th-century drawing of the capita I clarifies some of the badly degraded details (PI. XXD).28 Puzzled by the iconography, Baron François de Guilhermy concluded that the scene symbolized the rejection of the Synagogue by Christ and the calling of the Gentiles,z9 whereas another schol ar tentatively suggested the 'Arresting of Peter.,30 Yet neither identification accords with the iconographical

200

THE ST EDMUND CYCLE IN THE CRYPT AT SAINT-DENIS

FIG. 2.

19th-century line engraving after drawing in PI. XVIB. (Photo: After France Pittoresque, vol. 3)

details of the scene which are without known paralleIs or prototypes in Passion cycles: Christ, identi6ed by the cruciform nimbus, stands at left centre. He is wearing a long­ sleeved, ankle-length tunic and the drapery of his mande cascades from beneath his right arm. Like Edmund and Sebastian in the two martyrdom scenes that follow, Christ is depicted in pro6le. He holds the column in front of him as he looks back over his shoulder towards a man standing in the entrance of the two-storied building on the far left. With a key in his right hand, he is pointing to the building behind him; with his left he tugs on the drapery of Christ's mande as if to drag him into the building. The man's frontal pose, his cloak fastened in the cent re by a large brooch, his ankle-length tunic, and, although not indicated in the drawing, vestiges still visible of a head-dress, all indicate a person of authority. According to Mark 15:15-6, Pilate 'released Barabbas and delivered up Jesus, when he had scourged him.' Then Christ was 'led ... away into the court of the palace' and was mocked. Unusual as the iconography of this capital is, it seems to dep end on Mark's account and to give visual expression to Abbo's metaphor that likened Edmund before Hinguar to Christ before Pilate. The column in front of Christ provides a reference to his scourging. In right centre, the man facing Christ also grasps the column, but he is part of the group of six presumably representing the crowd that clamoured for the release of Barabbas. On the far right, the bearded man wearing

PAMELA Z. BLUM

201

a short tunic and standing apart in the doorway of the building, is identified here as Barabbas. Beneath the crenellated roof, three small windows set high in the masonry wall suggest that the building represents the jail where Barabbas was incarcerated. Significantly, the capital has no place in the crypt's New Testament cyele, a narrative sequence without any scenes of Christ's Passion. Yet the anomalous imagery of this capital acquires meaning and place in the Edmund cyele as the visual counterpart of Abbo's comparisons of Edmund before Inguar to Christ before Pilate and Edmund's tortures to Christ's Passion. The fourth capital in the series (PI. XXIA-c) depicts Edmund's martyrdom, and we know the fifth capital, now missing, only from a drawing by Albert Lenoir representing the martyrdom of St Sebastian (p:. XXID). The latter illustrates Abbo's metaphor comparing the two martyrdoms. In the two capitais, both saints stand in profile, their hands lashed to a tree. In the drawing, St Sebastian, turned slightly to the left, looks back over his left shoulder at two men, one of whom is an archer. Three arrows have found their target, and the archer readies the fourth in his drawn bow. The second man stands behind, his left hand on the archer's left hip, but the significance of the gesture is unelear. On the far right, two men, their scourges raised, are about to strike the saint. On the front face of the extant capital (PI. XXIB), Edmund, facing to the right, presents the mirror image of St Sebastian. A nimbus frames his bare head, and he too wears a short tunic. Behind him, a single arc her with drawn bow takes aim (PI. XXIA). On the far right (PI. XXIc), a half-crouching figure, like the others in a short tunic, faces away from the centra I scene in a pose suggesting that he has run off to hide. Presumably this is the Christian who witnessed Edmund's martyrdom. Guilhermy identified the sixth capital (PI. XIXD) as the Triumph of Mordecai (Esther 6. IO-I2), and Crosby read it as the Flight into Egypt. 31 In fact, the scene depicts another Biblical metaphor, that of Balaam and his speaking ass (Numbers 22. 20-33), whom Abbo cited with reference to the miraele of Edmund's speaking head. Seated on the left, Balak, King of the Moabites, is sending orders to Balaam to curse and destroy the Israelites. The King makes the gesture of speech with his left hand, and with his right, indicates that the command is directed to the prophet Balaam, here pictured astride his ass and already on his way to execute the order. But the Lord sent an angel to prevent Balaam from carrying out Balak's commando Wingless and garbed in tunic and eloak, the angel is barring the way, his weapon held upright. According to the Biblical text, only the ass could see the angel blocking the path. Thrice Balaam beat his ass to make it proceed, and thrice it refused. Then the Lord gave speech to the ass who protested, and 'forthwith the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel standing in the way.' In support of the indentification of this and the other two metaphorical capitais, it should be noted that the Benedict cyele also gives visual expres sion to Biblical metaphors - those cited by Gregory in his Vita Benedicti to elucidate the saint's miraeles. 32 Typically, hagiographicalliterature cites similarities to Biblical events and makes comparisons with Christ as a way of emphasizing the saints' sanctity. The Biblical metaphors mentioned in Abbo's Passio were given prominence and consider­ ably expanded in an anonymous Anglo-Norman poem, La Passiun de Seint Edmund, dated to c. 1200 on palaeographic evidence. 33 Although pre-dating the poem by approximately fifty-six years, the representations of three metaphorical events in the Edmund cyele betoken their importance to the legend. As already noted, the seventh and penultimate capital represents the procession carrying Edmund's head out of the woods (PI. XVIIA-c). The eighth and final one

200

THE ST EDMUND CYCLE IN THE CRYPT AT SAINT-DENIS

(PI. XIXA-c), now in the lapidary museum of the basilica, depicts another posthumous miracle that occurred during the rule of Abbot Leofstan (1044-65).34 The story was first told by Hermann, a monk of Bury, in his De Miraculis Sancti Eadmundi written in c. IIOO;35 and an embellished version is in Pierpont Morgan MS 736.36JElfgeth, a pious woman who had been cured of dumbness at the saint's shrine, persuaded Abbot Leofstan that the saint was much displeased by the lack of care given his remains. After considerable prodding, the abbot ordered the tomb to be opened and the body of the saint removed. Miraculously, the body appeared uncorrupted. Nevertheless, Leofstan decided to test whether the body and head had in fact been firmly rejoined. He himself grasped the martyr's head and commanded the young monk Thurstan to pull the saint's feet. In the ensuing tug of war, Edmund's head remained firmly attached. But, as a divine punishment for his temerity, Leofstan's arms and hands immediately withered, and he (temporarily) lost the power of speech and vision. The mutilated capital depicts the tug of war. Vestiges survive of arches framing the figures and of abbey buildings on the far right (PI. XIXc). Crouching on the left, Leofstan's arms encircle Edmund's head (PI. XIXA), and the monk Thurstan, identified by a cowl, crouches at the saint's feet (PI. XIXc). Above the body, a mutilated manus Dei directed towards Leofstan delivers the crippling punishment (Fig. XIXB). Finally, we should consider why the legend of Edmund, an Anglo-Saxon saint, was given a place in the Saint-Denis crypt. Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds (1065-97/8), having previously been a monk at Saint-Denis, provided an indisputable link between the two abbeys in the second half of the 1Ith century.3? Well-known for his healing arts, he became the physician of Edward the Confessor. In 1059, Baldwin's presence at court and gratitude for his service presumably prompted the king's gift of lands in Oxfordshire to Saint-Denis. Below the king's signature at the foot of the deed, Baldwin appended a no te affirming that his duties to the English king did not prevent him from always deferring to the abbot of Saint-Denis as his superior. 38 An accompanying letter from the king gave assurances that the feast of St Denis was much celebrated in England. 39 Baldwin's services as personal physician to Edward also earned him the abbacy of Bury St Edmunds in 1065. As abbot, he undertook to propagate the cult of Edmund on the continent, and to this end, he distributed relics of the saint on his journey to Rome in 1071.40 Yet there is no record that Saint-Denis ever possessed one. 41 Certainly, Edmund's feast day (20 November) was never celebrated as a duplex feast, an honour accorded to King Dagobert, the legendary founder of Saint-Denis, and to saints with relics in the abbey.42 Gransden has suggested that Baldwin mayalso have used copies of Abbo's Passio as propaganda to spread the cult. 43 We know that one of the two earliest existing manuscripts of the Passio was at Saint-Denis (Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek MS Gl.kgl.S 1588), a copy probably made soon after the mid-1Ith century.44 Although the earliest of several Saint-Denis class-marks on the manuscript date to the 13th century, this does not preclude the presence of the Passio at the abbey before then, either brought there or sent by Baldwin. 4 In the Copenhagen manuscript, Abbo's epistle to Dunstan is followed by the Office of St Edmund with musical notation. Both precede the text of the Passio which has marginalia dividing it into twelve lessons. 46 This may have been the beginning of a twelve lesson celebration of the cult. Indeed, in a study of the service books of Saint­ Denis, Robertson concluded that around 1069 the monks added the Office for St Edmund to the liturgy. As evidence, she cited hymns appended to an early I Ith-century psalter (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale MS lat. 103). They were a mid-century addition

PAMELA Z. BLUM

201

that adapted the psalter for use at Saint-Denis. 47 Robertson concluded that Baldwin's accession to the abbacy at Bury St Edmunds had given impetus to, or may even have instigated the celebration of the cult at Saint-Denis. 48 After the Conquest, William I retained Baldwin as his physician and continued to bestow royal favours on the French abbey. He not only gave the 'new' church of 'Derhest' (Deerhurst, near Gloucester) in ro69, 49 but, according to Guibert of Nogent, also ordered the construction of a tower at 'the church of the mighty Denis,'50 even as he continued Edward's tradition of liberal royal patronage to Bury St Edmunds. In effect, the royal donations to Saint-Denis during Baldwin's abbacy and the abbot's calculated use of the Passio to spread the cult on the continent seem to have inspired an enduring veneration of St Edmund at the abbey. No 12th-century ordinaries from the abbey have survived. The text of the earliest one (Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine MS 526), was copied between 1234 and 1236, and to some extent it still reflected liturgical practice in Suger's church. 51 Although the page containing the text for feasts from 20 to 24 November is missing,s2 Foley's chart of sanctoral cycles in the first two and the last surviving ordinaries indicates that Edmund's feast was listed in the Calendar of Mazarine MS 526.53 In the second Ordinary (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale MS lat. 976, fol. q8 copied between I254-59, we find his feast celebrated with twelve lessons. 54 The text of MS lat. 976 parallels that of Mazarine MS 526, even as it abridges and updates it. Given this evidence as weil as the altar dedicated to Edmund in the 12th-century crypt, schol ars assume that Mazarine MS 526 originally contained the text for Edmund's feast. 55 Although the ranking of feasts in order of solemnity as principal feasts, duplex feasts, twelve lesson or three lesson feasts, did not begin until the 13th century,56 the marginalia dividing the 1Ith-century Copenhagen Passio into twelve lessons suggest that from the inception of the cult in c. 1069, twelve lessons were re ad at Matins on Edmund's feast day. Because of the crypt capital depicting Leofstan's test of the integrity of Edmund's he ad and body, we can assu me that sometime after Baldwin's death in 1097/8, the abbey received a copy of Hermann's De Miraculis Sancti Eadmundi composed in c. IIOO, which recorded IIth-century miracles post-dating Abbo's Passio. In the prologue Hermann stated that he had written the work at the behest of Abbot Baldwin 'of blessed memory.'57 Baldwin's sponsors hip of De Miraculis may explain why a copy of it reached Saint-Denis, but we do not know when or how. Also, as noted above, the Lothbroc capital indicates that before II44, the date of the dedication of the crypt and choir, the monks knew yet another version of the legend, now lost, that predated the De lnfantia Sacti Eadmundi written by Gaufridus de Fontibus and contained the first known account of Lothbroc and his sons. The celebration of Edmund's cult doubtless continued after Baldwin's death. Yet communication between Saint-Denis and Bury St Edmunds cannot be documented, though it probably persisted as part of the web of contacts among houses of the Benedictine Order. 58 Indeed, we find English influences emerging in the sculptural programmes of the west façade (completed in 1140) and crypt, even in crypt capitals that are not part of the Edmund cycle. The numerous examples of capitals containing typically English motifs derived from Anglo-Saxon Biblical illustrations, include the Labours of Adam and Eve (PI. XXIIA), where Adam is carrying a spade and sowing seeds, and the Dives and Lazarus capita I (PI. XXIIB), where Heli is represented as the gaping jaws of a monster. 59 These and other demonstrably Anglo-Saxon iconographical motifs belie the apparent lack of continuo us communication between the two abbeys. V

)

66

THE ST EDMUND CYCLE IN THE CRYPT AT SAINT-DENIS

Perhaps the preeminent reason for a cycle honouring Edmund in the 12th-century crypt of the royal abbey was his royallineage and kingship. Among the many saints with altars in the crypt, Edmund alone was of royal blood. 60 Located in dextra parte, his altar in the first radiating chapel on the south side of the crypt lay just to the east of the chapel dedicated to St Benedict. Also, like St Denis himself, Edmund was the cult figure for an important Benedictine abbey. Bury St Edmunds and the abbey of Saint­ Denis both enjoyed liberal royal patronage and aspired to be monastic powers in the second half of the I nh and first half of the 12th centuries. In addition to those shared aspirations, the exalted status enjoyed by both saints suggests why St Edmund would have merited a cycle in his honour at Saint-Denis - a status acknowledged in a late 12th-century English poem glorifying the two saints: As Denis adorns the Gauls with his blood.

And Demetrius the Greeks, each the glory of his own people,

So Edmund adorns us, second to none in virtue,

The light, father, the great glory of his country.61

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This article, first presented as a paper at the BAA Conference held at Bury St Edmunds in April 1994, has been condensed from a chapter of a book in preparation on the crypt of the Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis and its historicated capitals. I wish to thank Antonia Gransden for her perceptive comments and felicitous editing.

REFERENCES 1.

2.

3. 4·

5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

On removing the masonry in 1847, Viollet-le-Duc's on-site architect found all capitals in the arcade missing: M. Mesnage, architecte, 'Journal des Travaux de l'Eglise Royale de Saint-Denis commencé au mois de Janvier 1847' [unpaginated], Saint-Denis Dossiers de Restauration, Paris, Bibliothèque de la Patrimoine, Archives des Monuments Historiques, 5 March 1849. A few of the surviving capitals have lost so many telling details th at their pertinence to one or another of the cycles is unclear. In view of the many missing capitais, a fifth cycle remains a possibility. For an estimate of the number lost, see P. Z. Blum, 'The Saint Benedict Cycle on the Capitals of the Crypt at Saint-Denis, 'Gesta, xx (1981), 87, Appendix. For the capita Is attributed to the Biblical cycle, see ibid., 86 n. 3. ibid., 73-87. On the manuscript, see inter alia, K. C. Fiom, M736 Miracula et Passio Sancti Eadmundi, a Study of the Pictorial Cycle, Ph.D. Diss., University of Maryland 1980, (U.M.I., 1983); K. R. Bateman, 'Pembroke 120 and Morgan 736: A Reexamination of the St. Albans Bury St. Edmunds Manuscript Dilemma,' Gesta, XVIII1 (1978), 19-26; Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, 72-74, no. 34; R. M. Thomson, 'Two Versions of a Saint's Life From St. Edmund's Abbey; Changing Currents in XIIth-Century Monastic Style,' Revue Bénédictine, LXXXV (1974), 383-408; and idem., 'Early Romanesque Book-Illustration in England; the Dates of the Pierpont Morgan "Vita Sancti Edmundi," and the Bury Bibie,' Viator, IJ (1971), 212, with the proposed date accepted here of c. II24-25. See inter alia, A. Lenoir, Musée des Monuments français ou col/ection chronologique de gravures (Paris 1800) [unpaginated], illus. no. 514; and idem, Museum of French Monuments (Paris 1803), 186-87. L. Courajod, Alexandre Lenoir, son journal et Ie Musée des Monuments français (Paris 1878), 1,179,182. Seine-Saint-Denis: Registre des attachements de Serrurerie; de Menuserie; de Marbrerie; de Plomberie; de Sculpture, Cartons 27 and 28, Folder 1813-14, Paris, Bibliothèque de la Patrimoine, Archives des Monuments Historiques, Carton 27, Année 1813. S. MeK. Crosby, 'The Abbey of St. Denis in the XII Century,' Ph.D. Diss., Yale University 1937, 151; and V. Raguin, 'Notes,' P. Z. Blum files, New Haven, CT.

PAMELA Z. BLUM

201

IO. 'Abbo, Life of St. Edmund from Ms Cotton Tiberius B.ii,' in Three Lives of English Saints, ed. M. Winterbottom (Toronto 1972), 67-87. With some revisions, the English translations given here dep end on Corolla Sancti Eadmundi: The Garland of Sa int Edmund King and Martyr (London 1907), ed. and translated F. Hervey, 6-59. For the historicity of the Edmund legend, see D. Whitelock, 'Fact and Fiction in the Legend of St. Edmund,' PSIA, XXXI (1970), 2I7-33; S. J. Ridyard, The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England. A Study of West Saxon and East Anglian Cults (Cambridge 1988), 61-73; esp. 2II-27, and A. Gransden, 'Abbo of Fleury's Passio Sancti Eadmundi,' Revue Bénédictine, cv (1995), 56- 63. 11. On the development of the legend, see G. Loomis, 'The Growth of the Saint Edmund Legend,' Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, XIV (1932), 83-II3. 12. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. D. Whitelock with D. C. Douglas and S. 1. Tucker (London-New Brunswick 1961), xvii, 46 n. 6. 13. Chronicle F, BL MS Cotton Domitian VII, produced at Christ Church, Canterbury, in the late IIth or early 12th century: ibid., xvii. 14. Abbo, Passio, ed. Winterbottom, 71 c. 4 11. 4-6. 15. ibid., 71 c. 5 11. 8-9. 16. ibid., 77-78 c. 911. 35-36, 39-41. 17. ibid., 78 c. 1011. 8-IO. 18. ibid., 78-79 c. 10 ll. 19-22. 19· ibid., 79 c. IO 11. 35-38. 20. ibid., 80 c. 1111. 21-26. 21. ibid., 81 c. 1211. 36-38. 22. ibid., 81 c. 1211. 4°-48. 23. Gaufridus de Fontibus, Liber de Infantia Sancti Edmundi, in Memoriais, I, 93-I03. For a critical study and new edition of the text, see R. M. Thomson, 'Geoffrey of Wells, De lnfantia Sancti Edmundi (BHL 2393),' Analecta Bollandiana, xcv (1977),25-42. 24. Memoriais, I, xxxv, suggested that Gaudfridus was a regular canon in a house in Thetford in the patronage of Bury St Edmunds. See Thomson, 'Geoffrey of Wells, .. .',27 and n. 5, for a rather different view. 25. Gaufridus, Liber, in Memoriais, I, 103; ed. Thomson, 'Geoffrey of Wells, ... " 42, ch. 8. For an evaluation of the historicity of Lothbroc and his sons, see G. Loomis, 'Saint Edmund and the Lodbrok (Lothbroc) Legend,' Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature xv (1933), 1-23; also Whitelock, 'Fact and Fiction,' 225-31 passim. 26. Album Lenoir, Cabinet des Dessins, Paris, Musée du Louvre, lnv. no. RF 5282.120. 27. The engraving illustrated here was published by A. Hugo, France Pittoresque, III (Paris 1835), 'Seine'; for a similar engraving, see also Va 93 t. 7, Cabinet des Estampes, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, no. B 13776. 28. Album Lenoir, Cabinet des Dessins, Paris, Musée du Louvre, lnv. no. RF 5282127. 29. F. de Guilhermy, '28 Notes historiques & descriptives sur l'Abbaye & Basilique de St Denis, 'Paris, Bib. Nat. nouv. acq. fr. MS. 6122, fo1. 32Iv (p. 98). 30. Crosby, 'The Abbey of St. Denis,' 143-44. Crosby questioned the authenticity of Christ's cruciform nimbus because Lenoir's drawing failed to include it. Yet, since the capital has never been retouched, without question the crossed nimbus is original but severely eroded. 31. ibid., 149; and Guilhermy, '28 Notes,' MS 6122, fo1. 320v (p. 96). 32. Blum, 'Saint Benedict Cycle,' 79-82. 33. See especially Balaam's ass as a metaphor: La Passiun de Seint Esmund, ed. J. Grant (Anglo-Norman Text Society, London 1978),98-99. 34. I am indebted to Lisa ldhe-Costa, who proposed the identification of this capital in a paper written for a seminar I taught at Yale University, Spring 1986. 35· Hermann,5 2-54· 36. This version, having been abbreviated and revised, was incorporated in the late 12th century in the De Miraculis Sancti Eadmundi attributed to Abbot Samson: Memoriais, I, 133-34. See R. M. Thomson, 'Two Versions of a Saint's Life from St Edmund's Abbey', esp. 387-88. 37. On Baldwin's abbacy, see A. Gransden, 'Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmund,' Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, IV (1981),65-76. 38. M. Félibien, Histoire de I'Abbaye Royale de Saint-Denys en France (Paris 1706), 126. 39. ibid. 40. See Gransden, 'Baldwin,' 65-76, esp. 72-76, and idem, 'Passio,' 63, and Appendix, 75-78, on the cult of St Edmund at Lucca. See also E. Bordier, Des Reliques de Sa int Edmund roi et martyr (Paris 1971), 16-18.

68

THE ST EDMUND CYCLE IN THE CRYPT AT SAINT-DENIS

41. On this see A. W. Robertson, The Service-Books af the Rayal Abbey af Saint-Denis. Images af Ritual and Music in the Middle Ages (Oxford-New York I99I), 62 n. 49. 42. On duplex feasts, second in importance to the principal festivals of the church, see E. B. Foley, The First Ordinary af the Rayal Abbey af St.-Denis in France. Paris, Bibliathèque Mazarine 526 (Fribourg I990), I69-73· 43. Gransden, 'Passia,' 63. 44. Ibid., 60; and D. Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda, La Bibliathèque de I'Abbaye de Saint-Denis en France du IXe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris 1985), 84, who dated the copy to the end of the Inh century. 45. Gransden, 'Passia,' 63· 46. ibid., 60. 47. Robertson, Service-Ba aks, 71, 346. 48. ibid., 46, 71. 49. Félibien, Histaire de I'Abbaye Rayal, 146-47. 50. Self and Society in Medieval France. The Memoirs af Abbat Guibert afNagent, ed. J. F. Benton (New York 1970),228. For archaeological con firma ti on of the tower, see S. McK. Crosby, The Rayal Abbey af Saint-Denis from its Beginnings ta the Death af Suger, 475-II5I, ed. P. Z. Blum (New Haven, London 1987),96-100. 51. E. B. Foley, The First Ordinary af the Royal Abbey af St.-Denis in France, 58-59. Robertson, Service Baaks, 373-74. Written in a different hand, the Calendar was completed in 124I: ibid. 52. ibid., 374; Foley, First Ordinary, 47-48. 53. ibid., 692. 54. Robertson, Service-Baaks, 462, 491; Foley, First Ordinary, 289, 692. 55. ibid., 48. 56. Robertson, Service-Baaks, 56-57. 57. Gransden, 'Passia,' 54. 58. On the Benedictine Order as a network far eammunicatian, see P. Z. Blum, 'The Lateral Partals af the West Façade af the Abbey Church af Saint-Denis,' in Abbat Suger and Saint-Denis, ed. P. Gersan (New Yark 1986), 2I3-14. On cross-Channel currents and influences involving Bury St Edmunds, Lincoln, and Saint-Denis, see also, G. Zarnecki, Ramanesque Lineain. The Sculpture af the Cathedral (Lincoln I988), 32-35,78,86,87- 88 ,95. 59. An Anglo-Saxon prototype for the insular tradition of Adam with a spade and bag of seeds occurs in an Anglo-Saxon manuscript, Bodl. Lib. MS Junius xi, illustrated in c. 1035. Although not the earliest known insular example, the J aws of Heli also feature prominently in the J unius xi illustrations. See reproductions in The Caedman Manuscript af Angla-Saxon Biblical Paetry. Junius xi in the Badleian Library, ed. I. Gollanz (Oxford I927), facs. 3, I6, 45, 46. On this manuscript, see also E. TempIe, Angla-Saxan Manuscripts 9aa-I066. A Survey of Manuscripts I/luminated in the British Isles, ed. ]. ]. Alexander, II (London 1976), 76-78 no. 58; and for a bibliography covering paleographical, textual, and literary criticism of the manuscript, as weil as the iconography and relationship of illustrations to text, see P. Z. Blum, 'A Cryptic Creation Cycle in Ms. Junius xi,' Gesta, xv (I976), esp. 2II-I5, 222-23 nn. I-15. 60. On the dedications of the chapels in the crypt, see Abbat Suger On the Abbey Church af St.-Denis and lts Art Treasures, ed. E. Panofsky (2nd edn, ed. G. Soergel-Panofsky, Princetan I973), II8-I9. Panafsky's identifications af the chapels are mistakenly reversed, left (north) and right (south) in the crypt. 61. Utque cruore suo gallos dionisius ornat, Grecos demetrius, gloria quisque suis, Sic nos Edmundus, nuli virtute secundus, Lux, pater, et patria gloria magna suae. BL MS Cotton Titus D XXIV. For this MS, a late 12th-or early 13th-century collection from Rufford, a Cistercian abbey in Notts, see J. H. Mogley, 'The Collection of Mediaeval Latin Verse in MS Cotton Titus xxiv,' Medium Aevum, XI (1942), 1-45, and supplementary notes by R. W. Hunt, Medium Aevum, XVI (1947), 6-8. Translation by L. Odhe-Costa, who brought the poem to my attention, is based an Caralla, ed. and translated Hervey, 166.

Medieval Metalworking and Bury St Edmunds By Marian Campbell Surviving medieval base and precious metal artefacts from Bury and its hinterland are surveyed, and relevant documents noted. Major pieces which have perished are also discussed, such as the I2th-century bronze abbey doors by Hugo 'Pictor'. Most of the objects are now in Moyse's Hall Museum, and it is suggested that a published catalogue of them would greatly assist research into the medieval cultural milieu of Suffolk. Before the late 20th century, the mark of all prosperous European societies has, to a notabie extent, been in the ownership of metals, precious and base - whether in the form of coin or as decorative metalwork made up into jewellery, tableware or liturgical objects. It is the purpose of this note both to drawattention to the varied and remarkably little known range of medieval metal objects associated with Bury and its hinterland, and to indicate some of the relevant documentary sources. From an archaeological standpoint, Bury has certainly been unlucky - unlike Winchester, for example, it has had no lavishly funded post-War excavations around its abbey with resultant hands ome publication of small finds. 1 Much material from Bury is on public display at Moyse's Hall Museum or can be seen by appointment at the Bury St Edmunds branch of the County Archaeological Unit, but the precise provenance of the majority of the metalwork in the Museum is often lacking, and the random nature of many finds makes a coherent study difficult. 2 As with any artefacts found in an urban context, questions to be asked of the Bury material include: what was made locally, what - if anything - was exported or imported, and, perhaps most difficult of all, whether such imports may be distinguished from local products. As the capitalof the ancient Liberty of St Edmund - a huge administrative area covering most of West Suffolk - Bury was of economic importance throughout the Middle Ages, and its abbey had jurisdiction over all people within the Liberty.3 Under Abbot Baldwin (I065-97), French craftsmen are known to have settled near the abbey in the area once known as Frenchmen's Street. 4 In the I3th century the yearly fair was being visited regularly by London merchants,s and by the late Middle Ages Bury has been shown convincingly to have been one of England's major regional markets and financial centres, with a relatively large population of metal craftsmen. 6 There is little direct evidence in and around Bury of the actual working of metals ­ for example, there are no iron-smelting furnaces, as at Woodbridge? Stray finds, such as part of a copper balancing-scales of c. I400 from Hadleigh (PI. XXIIIA) or a touchstone for testing gold and silver (PI. XXIIIA),8 may illustrate mercantile activity as much as goldsmithing. More certain evidence of active metalworking comes in the form of a few finely carved limestone moulds - used probably for casting copper alloy or lead. (PI. XXIIIc and E)9 Documents provide a somewhat fuller picture. The earliest property record to concern a metalworker is of c. I200 and names a goldsmith, Thomas son of Ralph, whose shop was in front of the monastery's great gate. lO In 1258 a Bury goldsmith called Henry is mentioned, but only for having stolen the abbot's sheep. Other Bury goldsmiths are named in willsll and property records. 12 At least one, John Worliche, seems to have worked as a goldsmith in both Bury and London; by the I480s he was engaged in pawnbroking and moneylending, becoming ultimately 'one of the wealthiest 6

70

MEDIEVAL METALWORKING

men in Suffolk'.13 Pewterers working in Bury in 1474 had their substandard wares seized by the wardens of the London Pewterers' Company, exercising its right of search. 14 An invaluable document of I295, the town rental, gives a precise snapshot of where some of the metal trades were then to be found. Goldsmiths were in Goldsmiths' Row near St J ames's church, with Smiths' Row to its south, harbouring blacksmiths as weIl as founders (who cast copper alloy) and a certain Roger 'Latounere' (that is, a worker of sheet copper).15 But what did these craftsmen produce? First and foremost was the gold and silver shrine containing relics of St Edmund, situated until the Dissolution in the ab bey. No fragment is known to have survived the depredations of Henry VIII's Commissioners who in 1538 reported that in Bury: 'we founde a rich shryne whiche was very comberous to deface. We have taken in the seyed monastery in golde and sylver 5000 markes (f3333 6s. 8d.) and above, over and besydes a weil and riche crosse with emereddes ... and sundry stones of great value, yet we left the churches very weil ffurnesshed with plate of sylver,16

By November 1539 more had been removed, induding silver plate and ornaments, as weIl as lead (from the roofs) and bells, the latter alone said to be worth 4500 marks. 17 Rare tangible evidence of such spoliation has been found buried elsewhere in Suffolk, in the grounds of Ixworth Priory, in the form of two very large ingots stamped with a crowned HR, which presumably were illicitly hidden and never recovered. One is now displayed in Moyse's Hall, the other in Christchurch Museum, Ipswich. 18 One of the pieces certain to have been confiscated in 1538 would have been the abbot's crozier, his symbol of office. This might have been the one which is known to have been made for Abbot Curteys in 1430, and which would have been passed on to his successors in office. Most unusually, a detailed contract survives for this, which tells us that it was to be of silver-gilt, substantial (at I53t oz.), to co st f40, and to be made by the London goldsmith and king's engraver J ohn HorweIl (who was possibly a Suffolk man by origin). Figures of the apostles were to be set around the knop, with scenes of the Annunciation and the Assumption of the Virgin; placed most prominently in the crook was to be the figure of St Edmund. The dosest extant parallel to this is Bishop Richard Fox's crozier, made c. 15°1, at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. 19 But of course the shrine of St Edmund itself, throughout the Middle Ages, must have been the largest and costliest example of goldsmiths' work in Bury. The identity of the craftsmen who made it is unknown, and even its appearance is uncertain. Lydgate's depictions of it in the I5th century show it in a dozen different ways, some a blend of Romanesque and Gothic styles, some entirely Gothic. Such evidence as exists suggests that in 1095, when Abbot Baldwin placed it in the newly built abbey, it was probably of the then standard 'shrine' shape, of sarcophagus form, and made of wood covered with embossed silver sheets. 20 In II98 the effects of a fire so damaged it that, according to the chronider Jocelin, gems feIl out or were turned to powder, and the sheets of silver feIl away or were left hanging loose - the one part unaffected was said to be the Christ in Majesty scene at one end. The then abbot, Samson, had the front repaired in gold, and added a figure of St Michael to the lid. 21 Other than these there are no details of the shrine's decorative schema, but it would have been usual to combine christological scenes with those from the life of the saint. 22 The shrine was the naturaI focus for the gifts of pilgrims, whether in hope or in gratitude for the generous indulgences granted to them for the pilgrimage. 23 Gifts were often of precious metal, like Henry III's donation to the shrine in 1257 of a gold

MARIAN CAMPBELL

71

crown - probably a London-made piece. But Bury craftsmen may have made the gifts of local devotees such as Lady Ela Shardelowe, who in 1457 bequeathed a gold monile (brooch), or the wealthy John Baret (d. 1467), who directed that his bequest of a gold heart-shaped brooch decorated with angels, a ruby and white enamel be 'hange, naylyd and festnyd upon the shrine'.24

JEWELLERY Ir must, ho wever, be likelier that most of the chance jewellery finds from the vicinity of the ab bey have come from off the visitor rather than the shrine. Such pieces include a gold ring set with a gamet (?) found in a drain in Mustow Street by the abbey wall25 and a fine silver-gilt ring brooch of c. 1300 found in the abbey vineyard, set with gamets, in high collets, which altemate with rosettes 26 (PI. XXIVc). The ring has no distinguishing feature, but the oddly prominent settings on the brooch and its bifacetted profile closely resem bIe a slightly smaller example found in Shelfhanger, just over the border in Norfolk. 27 Such a stylistic coincidence may argue for a manufacturing one too - perhaps in Bury itself? Three other ring-brooches (PI. XXIVD) of similar date (two of silver, one of copper alloy) are of styles generally described as English, place of manufacture unknown - the left-hand one was found at Wangford, the others in Bury. The distinctive brooch with clasped hands and set with a crystal, is of copper alloy ­ one of a group of brooches of this style that were made in gold, silver and copper alloy.28 Other goldsmiths' work of interest found locally includes a 13th-century gold and sapphire ring from Bradfield St George (four miles from Bury), and dress-fasteners (PI. XXIVE) in gold, silver, copper-alloy and lead. 29 But perhaps artistically the most accomplished piece is the silver-gilt decorative band from the crozier of Abbot Samson (II82-12II), found in his coffin in 1903 (PI. XXIIIG). Ir is very finely engraved with palmettes, interlace and scrolling foliage of a type found in England in c. 1200. 30

SEALS Seal matrices were commonly made of metal, those of the highest status being of gold and the humblest of pewter. Seals were as important to individuals as to institutions, since they were used as marks of authentication for letters and other documents. Large numbers of wax seal impressions survive from the abbey - both the different designs used by the monastic Chapter, and the pers onal seals of individual abbots. Some are of iconographic interest or are of high artistic quality, their fine modelling an indication of ski lied engraving on the original matrix, but although several have been studied seriously, they have never received scholarly attention as a group.31 T. A. Heslop has plausibly attributed two to the great Bury artist Master Hugo, one an abbey seal of c. II 50 (PI. XXV A) and the other the seal of Abbot Hugh (1157-80).32 On both, the illusion of figures shown in deep relief is maximized by their clinging garments, engraved with curvilinear folds. Other fine seals include that of Abbot Samson (II82-12II), which he himself had at least a part in designing since he specified that he was to be shown wearing a mitre (PI. XXVB), and a later 13th-century vesica­ shaped privy seal of the abbey (PI. XXVc). This is both technically and artistically accomplished, showing the martyrdom of St Edmund in great detail: at the top the king is being shot at by five archers, and in the lower part is the moment of his decapitation, with the wolf on the right guarding his head. On the reverse side is St Edmund enthroned and crowned, flanked by two bishops. The source for these designs is unknown but the iconography, especially that of St Edmund's martyrdom, is notably

72

MEDIEVAL METALWORKING

close to that shown in the I2th-century Bury manuscript of the Miracles of St Edmund (f. 14). It would further not be surprising if the privy seal's scenes reflected some of those on the shrine, a link perhaps hinted at by the prominent trefoil opening beneath Edmund's decapitated body. What is this, if not an image of the opening in the side of the shrine itself, similar in function to those once at Westminster and Canterbury and elsewhere? Numerous personal seal matrices, mostly of lead, have also been found in Bury; the majority are of simple design and date from the I3th century or later (PI. XXIIIB) , but one, made for William de Bosco, was mounted with a classical intaglio of a Pegasus (PI. XXIIIF).34 COPPER ALLOY

A great many copper alloy objects have been found, dating from between the I2th and I5th centuries. The versatility of copper - which can be worked either by hammering or by being heated and cast in moulds - makes it suitable for objects as diverse as dress-hooks or bells. The few hammered objects include belt-buckles of the Inh to I3th centuries, with finely embossed decoration, and traces of gilding (PI. XXIV A and B). One of c. 1200, found at Moreton Hall, Bury, shows a delicately modelled winged beast with paws and a palmette tail, comparable distantly to one found in Winchester, but also to Limoges work. 35 Others of simil ar date and manufacture show seated kings, either holding a bird or flanked by enigmatic figures. It is possible that all of these were locally made. Amongst a number of finely cast copper alloy pieces are two I2th-century objects of uncertain function, one a hollow lion's head, conceivably the end of a book-mark, the other a partly open bud,37 tentatively identified as a plumb-bob (PI. XXIVF). Afigure of St John the Evangelist, of cast copper-gilt, was found at Rattlesden near Bury and probably formed part of a cross (PI. XXVIID). Artistically distinguished, it dates to c. rr60, its style close to that of contemporary Mosan artists. 38 The small copper alloy figure of the Virgin and child, found at Cavenham ne ar Bury (PI. XXVIIc), is of somewhat later date, its statuesque style perhaps of c. 1200-50. The hollowed back was probably intended for arelic. This little known piece is remarkable too for the fact that at least three other very similar figures from the same workshop survive in England, one found in c. 1886 in the woods at Shere, Sussex, another acquired in Lincoln and now in the British Museum (Trollope collection), the third unprovenanced. This hitherto unnoticed group are all certainly English, and possibly Bury products, all diminutive versions of large scale figures of the Virgin and child. These would have been made in large numbers, but are now extraordinarily rare. Just one I3th-century example survives, made of oak, supposedly from Langham church in Essex and now in the Victoria and Albert Museum. In style and date comparable with the small figures, like them the Langham Virgin has its back hollowed to enclose a relic. 39 Only about 30 years earl ier, great bronze (copper alloyed with tin) double doors are recorded as having been made 'insculptas digitis' for the west end of the abbey by Master Hugo, the virtuoso artist of the Bury Bible and 'sculptor incomparabiliter'. Noted by the antiquary Leland in around 1535, they probably we re destroyed very soon afterwards, at the Dissolution. 40 Their appearance is unknown, but by analogy with contem,g0rary doors elsewhere in Europe, for example at the church of San Zeno, Verona 1, it is possible that they depicted scenes from the lives of Christ and St Edmund. The likelihood that the doors were made in alocal foundry increases with the knowledge that Hugo is said also to have designed a bell in honour of St Edmund. 42 Although early I2th-century evidence of large-scale founding or bell-founding is at

MARIAN CAMPBELL

73

present lacking in Bury, it was known as a bell-founding cent re from at least the 15th century. The 14th-century bell-shaped vessel (now in Carlisle Cathedral) possibly associated with the Glanvilles of Chevington, Suffolk, is just the sort of domestic item that a bell-foundry might have produced as a side-line. 43 Numerous 15th- and 16th­ century bells attributed to Bury survive in west Suffolk, in many cases still in the churches for which they were made, while several are in Moyse's Hall. 44 A number are known to have been made by Reignold Chirche (d. 1498), active in Bury from 1471, with a foundry in Smiths' Row. Chirche's maker's mark (PI. XXVID) shows the motifs of a canon and a bell, and it seems likely that his output was not restricted to bells, but included domestic wares, cauldrons and mortars, as well as cannon. It has recently been suggested that Chirche mayalso have produced memorial brasses. 45 But not all bells at Bury were locally cast. In 1433-34 Abbot Curteys (1429-46) commissioned a new tenor bell for the Abbey for f20 from the London founder William Powdrell, who was based in the Aldwych, conveniently close to the abbot's London residence. 46 Other than bells, the most numerous cast copper alloy objects in West Suffolk are eagle lecterns for the gospels, which were long thought (following C. C. Oman) to be of English workmanship (either London or Bury) , but which are now considered imports from the brass-producing centres of the Low Countries. 47 ENAMELS

The enameIs found locally, all of champlevé on copper, fall into three distinct categories - those whose heraldry links them directly with Bury, probable imports, and the rest. All the pendants in the first group bear the badge of the abbey of Bury, crossed arrows and crowns, in slightly different combinations, on a ground of blue enamel (PI. XXVIc).48 These pendants were probably made locally from the 13th century onwards, and would have been intended for wear by the abbey's retainers and possibly also for the decoration of their horses' harness. The enamels in the second group are of the Limoges type and were probably all imported from France, although it is worth remembering that 'French artificers' were present in late IIth-century Bury, and that men of Limoges are recorded as visiting 13th-century Rochester and 14th-century London. The earliest Limoges piece is also artistically the most distinguished - a roundel of c. II80 showing mythological birds entwined in foliage, delicately drawn and coloured (PI. XXVIF). It probably once decorated a casket (it has been damaged by secondary use as a lock plate) and is stylistically close to the enamelled altar frontal now in the Provincial Museum, Burgos, from the abbey of Santo Domingo de los Silos. 49 More standard Limoges products are the crucifix figure of the late 12th century, with just the loin cloth enamelled blue, and the damaged roundel of Christ of c. 1200 (probably from a cross), found near the church at West Stow, a few miles from Bury (PI. XXVIB and E).sO Into the miscellaneous category, which cannot be localized, co mes an engaging piece of uncertain function: an oddly shaped plaque depicting a fox wearing a monk's cowl, perhaps 14th-century, with traces of blue enamel (PI. XXVIA) .51 LEAD AND PEWTER

At least eight whole or fragmentary absolution crosses - of Latin, Greek or Maltese form - are known to have been found in graves in the abbey cemetery at dates between 1849 and 1903; seven are in Moyse's Hall Museum and one in the British Museum. s4 All are entirely undecorated but some bear the same very faint scratched inscription:

74

MEDIEVAL METALWORKING

'crux Xpi triu(m)phat crux Xpi xpellit hostem' (PI. XXVIIA), derived from one of the Collects for the consecration of a church. 52 The uncialletter forms appear to be 12th century if not earlier. A piece of a broken Maltese cross was found in Abbot Samson's coffin, which was uncovered with those of four other ab bots in the chapter house in 1903. It would not have been unusual to find pewter grave chalices in the coffins, as in the chapter house graves at Lincoln,s3 but none were discovered, or at least none have survived. On the edge of Bury, however, one similar such chalice, of c. 125°-13°0, was recently found on the site of the Franciscan friary at Babwell, now occupied by the Priory Hotel (PI. XXVIIE).54 The chalice was discovered when the car-park was being created, and is kept at the hotel (where it can be viewed by appointment). Another pewter grave chalice of c. 1200 was found at Lavenham, a few mil es from Bury.55 Grave chalices we re produced very much to standard pattern and it is impossible to judge where they were made, although the chance find of part of a lead ingot (PI. XXVIIB) at Cavenham near Bury suggests some lead or pewter-working activity.56 A rare solitary fragment of a lead corpus (PI. XXVIIB), perhaps 15th century, found a few miles from Bury, may be further evidence of this. 57 But of all the devotionallead and pewter objects, a series of pilgrim badges showing St Edmund is most immediately associated with the shrine. These would have been made locally - though none has yet been found locally - and sold to pilgrims. Most surviving examples date from the qth and 15th centuries and have been found in London and Sourhampton. One, from Hailes Abbey, was in 1934 given to the Bury Museum Service. 58 Like this badge, most show Edmund standing, semi-clothed, being shot with arrows (PI. XXVG and H),59 although he is also found portrayed as crowned and robed, simply holding an arrow. 60 It is possible that both iconographical types derive from scenes on the shrine itself. Other distinctively Bury products were the lead St Nicholas tokens. 61 These apparently we re first made towards the end of the I 5th century; several types have been found in the Abbey grounds or nearby, as weIl as a mould for one (PI. XXIIIc and D).62 Although their function is not certain, there is some reason to think that they we re used as substitute money, as they so closely resem bie contemporary groats and pence. Rigold plausibly suggested that they could have been redeemed at the ab bey for food, and that they we re distributed by the Boy Bishop during his annual reign from St Nicholas's day (6 December) to Childermas (Holy Innocents Day, 28 December). IRON

The large iron-bound wooden chest - effectively a safe - now at St James's church, Icklingham (PI. XXVIIIA and D), has decorative cut-out motifs of c. 13°0, and Geddes has suggested very plausibly that an object of such elaboration and value must originally have been made for, and perhaps at, a large religious foundation such as the abbey at Bury.63 Several of the numerous keys (mostly of iron, a few of bronze) in Moyse's Hall, dating from the Inh to the 15th centuries, were found in the abbey grounds in the 19th century (PI. XXVIIIB and cl. They were formerly in the Ford collection, and attest to the importance of security to a wealthy abbey.64 No locks have been found locally, and none of the keys matches any of the twelve locks on the massive, entirely iron-cl ad deed chest (PI. XXVIIIE) of the 15th century, also at Moyse's Hal1. 65 It was the property of the Feoffment, and provides substantial evidence of the blacksmith's and locksmith's arts, with two enormous hasps and bolts at the back for chaining it to the wall, and hoops at either end to enable it to be carried on poles.

MARIAN CAMPBELL

75

Although small caskets of similar form survive, generally attributed to English or French workmanship, there is no other extant chest that is so substantial, and it seems possible that it was locally made. 66 Almost all the Bury metalwork remains anonymous, even its provenance often uncertain. Although the great masterpieces are lost, like Hugo's bronze doars or St Edmund's gold and silver shrine, yet the apparently fragmentary remains can teil us much ab out Bury as a centre of trade, commerce and metalworking activity throughout the Middle Ages. Even these miscellaneous chance finds, so varied in kind and in artistic quality, help to throw light on the milieu of the abbey, with its long history of worldly abbots and royal patronage. Ir is clear th at many pieces, especially those of the 12th and 13th centuries, are of fine quality, and that there is a pressing need for a proper catalogue of this material, for schol ars and students alike.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe particular thanks to two people above all. Without the knowledgeable patient guidance of Chris Mycock (of Bury Museums Service) through the collections at Moyse's Hall and elsewhere this article could not have been written. At the Victoria and Albert Museum, Andrew Spira provided inval ua bie bibliographic assistance and took a number of the photographs. In addition my thanks go to Antonia Gransden, John Cherry, John Clark, John Goodall, Arthur MacGregor, Nigel Ramsay, Brian Spencer and Madeleine Tilley.

PHOTOGRAPHIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am most grateful to Mrs C. Creighton, Mr A. Skinner, the Vicars of St Peter and St Paul, Clare, and of St James, Icklingham, the Trustees of the British Museum, Moyse's Hall Museum, the Society of Antiquaries of London and Messrs Contaloc for allowing me to illustrate their pieces. Copyright of pI. XXIIIo is that of Moyse's Hall Museum, Bury; of pI. XXVG and H that of Brian Spencer, and pis XXVIIB and XXVIIIA that of the Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Copyright of all other black and white plates is that of the author; pis XXIIIG, XXVIE and F, and XXVIIE that of Andrew Spira.

REFERENCES A sizeable proportion of the handsome two volumes devoted to the Winchester material covers metal objects, many closely comparable with Bury pieces; see Object and Economy in Medieval Winches ter, ed. Martin BiddIe, Winchester Studies pt 7 (i) and (ii) (Oxford 1990). Metal small finds from Norwich are usefully discussed in S. Margeson, Norwich Households: The Medieval and Post Medieval Finds (rom Excavations I97I-78 (East Anglian Archaeology, LVIII, 1993); thase from London are discussed in Dress Accessories II50-I450: Medieval Finds (rom Excavations in London, ed. G. Egan and F. Pritchard (London 1991). 2. The 1903 catalogue is the briefest of handlists, unillustrated, and there has been no catalogue more recent. Post-war finds have often been noted, and sometimes illustrated, in PSIA, and occasional exhibitions have drawn on Bury metalwork: English Church History Exhibition, St Albans Town Hall (1905) and Selig Suffolk: A Catalogue o( Religious Art, ed. N. H. Turner and D. L. Jones, Christchurch Museum, Ipswich (c. 1985); also English Romanesque Art I066-IZOO, Arts Council exhibition cat., ed. G. Zarnecki et al. (London 1984) and Age o( Chivalry, Royal Academy exhibition cat., ed. J. Alexander and P. Binski (London 1987). 3. Lilian Redstone, 'The Liberty of St Edmund', PSIA, xv (1915), 200-U; Diarmaid MacCulloch, Suffolk and the Tudars (Oxford 1986), 19-20; R. B. Gottfried, Bury St Edmunds and the Urban Crisis (Princeton 1982),84 ff. 1.

76

MEDIEVAL METALWORKING

4. V. B. Redstone, 'St Edmund's Bury and the town rental for 12.95', PSIA, XIII (1909), 197. 5. Gottfried, Bury St Edmunds and the Urban Crisis, II5; G. Unwin, 'Social and Economic History', in VCH Suffolk, I (I9II), 636-37. 6. Gottfried, Bury St Edmunds and the Urban Crisis, 88-89, II5-I6. 7. This may have been used up to the 13th or 14th centuries: M. Weight, 'The remains of an iron-smelting furnace near Woodbridge, Suffolk', journal for the Society of the History of Metallurgy, xv, pt 2. (1981), ro7-09· 8. The scale-plan is stamped with a merchant's mark and inscribed 'GEEXBAERI' (?). It is 4.5 cm in diameter, Moyse's Hall museum number (henceforward MH) 1983-34. It is possible that it was locally made, although Nuremberg was the great production centre of weights and measures at this date. The touchstone (provenance unknown) appears to be fine-grained black limestone, with a streak of gold (?) on one side; MH 1976-2.01, length 5.5 cm. For comparable pieces see A. Oddy, 'Assaying in Antiquity', Gold Bulletin, XVI (1983), 55-59 and ills, also A. Oddy and R. Tylecote, 'Objects associated with gold­ working', Object and Economy, ed. Biddie, 7(i), 76-78 and pI. IXa. 9. For moulds in general see Age of Chivalry, nos 447-49. Here pI. Ia shows (left) a mould [MH 1977-940 (OS), 50 x 45 mm] used for casting the lead St Nicholas tokens made in Bury in the 15th century; see note 62. below. The mould in pI. XXIIIE may be for making part of a dress-ornament or brooch, probably in copper aHoy. The centra I motif seems to be a form of AGLA, a medieval amuletic inscription which was supposed to protect the wearer from fever, made up of the initiais, in Roman characters, of the Hebrew inscription meaning 'Thou art mighty forever Oh Lord'.lt is found on rings and brooches, such as a 14th­ century example in Edinburgh: J. Graham Callander, 'Fourteenth century brooches and other ornaments in the National Museum of Antiquities', Proeeedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Seotland, LVIII (192.3-2.4), 160-61, fig. I no. I, and O. M. Dalton, Catalogue of Finger-Rings in the British Museum (London 1912.), 135-36, no. 865. The right-hand mould appears to show the decorative elements from a belt, probably for casting in copper alloy, comparable with 14th-century silver fittings on girdles from ltaly and Cyprus: I. Fingerlin, Die Gurtel des Hohen und Späten Mittelalters (Munich 1971), nos 66, 152., 154. lt is MH 1977-940 (OS), its dimensions e. 70 x 50 mmo All the moulds are from Suffolk sites, th at of the Boy Bishop tokens probably from the Abbey Grounds. 10. Kalendar, no. 8,79-80. 11. CPR, 1247-58, 662.. 12.. See Kalendar, and 'Calendar of Pre-Reformation wills ... registered at ... Bury St Edmunds', ed. Vincent Redstone, PSIA, XII (1907). Bury has a comprehensive collection of 14th- and I 5th-century townspeople's wills, since everyone, regardless of property or wealth, proved their will before the sacrist's court. A few Bury goldsmiths are named and their wills cited by Henry Casley, 'An Ipswich worker of Elizabethan plate', PSIA, XII (1907), 183. A few more appear, but without sources, in jaekson's Si/ver and Gold Marks, ed. Ian Pickford (London 1991), 341-42. A serious study of Bury goldsmiths is overdue. 13. Gottfried, Bury St Edmunds and the Urban Crisis, 153 and n. 66 (his will is P.C.B. St E., Pye, fol. 99). 14. R. Homer, 'Tin, lead and pewter', in English Medieval Industries, ed. J. Blair and N. Ramsay (London etc. 1991),61. 15. Redstone, 'St Edmund's Bury and the town rental', 198,211. 16. BL, MS Cotton Cleopatra E IV, fol. 22.9b, printed in Three Chapters of Letters relating to the Suppression of Monasteries, ed. T. Wright (Camden Soc., O.S., XXVI, 1843), 144. 17. VCH, Suffolk, II (1907),67. 18. MH 1976-2.2, length e. 0.95 m, width C. 0.4 m, weight e. 7 cwt., found in 1835, PSIA, 1(1853),88. 19. The contract is in BL, MS Add. 14848, fol. 79, dated 17 January 8 Henry VI. lt is printed and discussed by T. Wilson in 'Fox's crozier', Corpus Christi College Annual Report and The Peliean (1981),9-2.7, to be reprinted in Silver at Corpus Christi Oxford, ed. Helen Clifford (forthcoming). Orwell was a prominent London goldsmith: M. Campbell, 'English 15th century goldsmiths', in England in the Fifteenth Century, ed. D. Williams (Woodbridge 1987), 52-53. 20. Lydgate's illustrations of the shrine appear on fols 4", 9, 97", roov , 106, ro8, 109, IlOv , of BL, MS Harley 2278. For information on its appearance we are principally reliant on 12th-century accounts such as that of Jocelin: jB, ro6-16, supplemented by others, see Crook, above 38-42. In ro95 the shrine is described as covered with silver plates, probably embossed: 'Iaminis argenteis exsculpserunt', see Memoriais, II, 289, from Gesta Sacristarum (BL, MS Harley 10°5, fol. 120). Since it held the (alleged) body of St Edmund it must have been at least 2 metres in length, and may perhaps have resembied in form the shrine of St Hadelin in Visé, Belgium, of C. ro75; P. Lasko, Ars Sacra (London-New Haven 1994), 189-94, pis 260-62. This was decorated with scenes from the life of Christ and of the saint. 21. 1198 fire: jB, 106-07. Christ in Majesty often decorated shrines, for in stance th at of e. II60-70 of St Servais in Maastricht: Rhin-Meuse: Art et Civilisation 8oo-qoo (Cologne-Brussels 1972), G8, 245-46.

MARIAN CAMPBELL

77

22. The most useful recent discussion of shrine iconography is in Un Trésor Gothique - la Chasse de Nivelles (Cologne-Paris 1995-96), section V, 135 ff.; the standard work remains J. Braun, Die Reliquiare des christ/ichen Kultes (Freiburg 1940). The most comprehensive study of goldsmiths and their work on an English shrine is still C. C. Oman, 'Goldsmiths at St Albans Abbey during the I2th and I3th centuries', St Albans and Hertfordshire Architectural and Archaeological Society Trans., 1932,215-36. Given the close links between illuminators at Bury and St Albans in the 12th century it would not be surprising if their goldsmiths to~ were associated. See O. Pächt et al., The St Albans Psalter (London 1960), 167, and Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, no. 34: The Life and Miracles of St Edmund of c. Il30. There is some useful material on St Edmund's shrine in N. Coldstream, 'English decorated shrine bases', JBAA, CXXXIX (1976), 25-26, and J. C. Wall, Shrines of British Saints (London 1905), 216-23 (but without references) . 23. Feudal Documents, xliv-v, 153 no. 171; the original indulgence, granted by Cardinal John Minuto in c. 1°70 may be the earliest known indulgence granted to a church in England, and amongst the earliest in Europe. 24. Henry's gift, worth LID, was to be suspended from the shrine; it was ordered through Edward of Westminster; CCR, I25I-53 , 152-53. The Shardelowe and Baret wills are printed in Bury Wills and Inventories, ed. S. Tymms (Camden Soc., O.S., XLIX, 185°), 13, 35. 25. MH 1976-283, diameter about 15 mm, its shape somewhere between a stirrup and a rounded hoop, and so possibly c. 1300; see Dress Accessaries, ed. Egan and Pritchard, nos 609-610, and fig. 215, pp. 326-27. 26. MH 1977-944, diameter 34 mm, see PSIA, XXXIV (1978), 147. It is inscribed in capitals with the angelic salutation 'Ave Maria Gracia Plena'. 27. Now in the Victoria and Albert Museum; see R. W. Lightbown, Medieval European Jewellery (London 1993), no. 4, and Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, md ser., XIII (1890),68-69. 28. The Ieft-hand brooch, MH 1983-109T6, is of silver, cast, with four settings now empty of their stones, diameter 29 mmo The right-hand brooch, MH 1984-47, diameter 22 mm is also of silver, of wire set with four bollions with ring-punched decoration. Similar brooches have been found in London of pewter: Dress Accessaries, ed. Egan and Pritchard, nos 1330, 1333, pp. 252-53, and of silver in northern Britain: Parker Brewis, 'Six silver ring-brooches of the 14th century from Northumberland', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., IV (1927), Il4-18, and J. Graham Callander, Proceedings, fig. 5 (I and 2). The brooch with clasped hands is MH 1988-274, maximum length 32 mmo Ir is quite a common type of 14th-century brooch; a similar one was found in London, see Dress Accessaries, ed. Egan and Pritchard, no. 1335, p. 255 with fulllist of comparabilia. 29. The finger-ring MH 1981.264.8 (diameter 21 mm), is of standard stirrup type: Dress Accessaries, ed. Egan and Pritchard, no. 609, 326-27. Numerous fittings of the hooked-tag type in copper alloy have been found, comparable with those from many English sites, see Object and Economy, ed. Biddie, 7 (ii), 548-52, fig. 1428. More unusual are the fittings in pI. XXIVE. Three are dress-fasteners, the smallest (top right) of silver gilt and gold filigree, hollow, MH Loan 688, maximum length 19 mm; the larger, also trefoil shaped (bottom left) of similar construction but of copper gilt, MH 1976.261, maximum length 36 mmo The style of the filigree may indicate a late medieval date, and compares with that of the spherical heads of dress-pins found in Norwich: Margeson, Norwich Households, 10-Il, fig. 4, nos 26-28. The remaining ornaments illustrated in pI. XXIVE are both alloys of lead; MH 1991-61 (top left) was found at Lakenheath, maximum length 28 mm, and its similarity to the trefoil fasteners suggests a similar date. The cast lead trefoil ornament (bottom right) MH 1983-120.2 (width 21 mm) is of comparable style and also bears the remains of a loop and a hook. Ir closely resembles the lead trefoil motifs on a London­ found belt: Dress Accessaries, ed. Egan and Pritchard, 244-45, fig. 156. 30. English Romanesque Art, ed. Zarnecki et al., no. 300. The coffins of Samson and other abbots are illustrated in H. R. Barker, West Suffolk Illustrated (Bury St Edmunds 1907), 57. The crozier band is MH 1976-285 (OS), maximum height 37 mmo lts style is c. 1200, so that it was fairly new when buried. It is considered to be of English workmanship, although Samson is recorded as having acquired at least one silver crozier abroad: JB, 87. 31. VCH, Suffolk, II (1907),72 and pI. I; Alfred Morant, 'On the abbey of Bury St Edmunds', PSIA, IV (1874), 402 - 04. 32. The second seal of the abbey, pI. XXVA, shows St Edmund. One of several impressions, this is from Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ch. Suffolk 10 (dimensions 80 x 54 mm); see A. Heslop in English Romanesque Art, ed. Zarnecki et al., 100 and no. 356. For two good impressions in Cambridge, and further comment, see Gransden, Exhibition Catalogue, below 237 and n. 27. For Abbot Hugh's seal see Heslop, op. cit., no. 365. 33. For Samson's seal see A. Heslop, 'Se als as evidence for metalworking in England in the later 12th century', in Art and Patronage in the English Romanesque, ed. S. Macready and F. H. Thompson (London 1986),

200

34·

35·

12

37·

39·

40 .

201 42 •

MEDIEVAL METALWORKING 57 and n. 22. An addition to the impressions cited by Heslop is that attached to BL Egerton Charter 2180 (databie between I206-II): see A. Collins, British Museum Quarterly, XI (1936-37),62-63 and pI. It is uncertain which is the original of the electrotype copy of Samson's seal in the Society of Antiquaries (dimensions 51 x 80 mm), pI. XXVB. The privy seal of the abbey (pI. XXVc) is deeply engraved on bath sides, see no te 31; for the MS Miracles of St Edmund, see Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, no. 34. The illustration shows a cast in the Society of Antiquaries (dimensions 81 x 53 mm), taken from an impression in the BL: W. de G. Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts of the British Museum, 6 vols (London 1887-1900), I, no. 2801. The common seal of the abbey, of c. 1300, pis XXVD-F, shows on the obverse King Edmund, flanked by two kings, on the reverse the decapitation of the saint, his translation, and God holding the crown of glory: F. Ouvry, 'Bury Abbey seal', PSIA," (1859), 188-89 and pI. The illustrations show casts at the Society of Antiquaries. Several seals of bronze and lead, found in Bury, were in the Nelson Collection (now dispersed): P. Nelson, 'Some British medieval seal matrices', Archaeol. j., XCIII (1936), nos 1,2,16,19,21,62,65 with some ills. Of the two seals illustrated as pI. XXIIIB, MH 1979-994 (Ieft) of silver lacks its centre, probably an intaglio, and is inscribed 'SigilI Will de Meldig' (length 28 mm). It was found at Hardwiek Heath: PSIA, XXXIV (1978), 147. The other, MH 1979-186 of lead (diam. 31 mm) found in Bury, reads 'S. Radudi i Palfrei'. Both are probably 13th-century, like De Bosco's seal, pI. XXIIIF, which was found in a Bury garden: PSIA, IV (1874), 336-39. lts present location is unknown. PI. XXIVB (top): MH 1977-675 (length 36 mm) has a stippled ground with traces of gilding. The cruder Winchester buckle is no. II45 in fig. 130, Object and Economy, ed. Biddie, 7 (ii), 516-17. Closer in style are the animals on the English silver drinking bowl from Dune, Gotland, of the late 12th century: English Romanesque Art, ed. Zarnecki et al., no. 306. The lower buckle also from Moreton Hall, in pI. XXIVB, MH 1980-25 (Iength 39 mm) is engraved with a stylized lion with traces of gilding; other fragments (MH 1979-135, from Lading, Norfolk, and 1976-225, OS, provenanee unknown) depiet lions of similar style and all may be 12th-13th century, and notably parallel a belt-buckle excavated at Roskilde, Denmark, of copper once enamelled, c. 1225-50: Niels-Knud Liebgott, Middelalderens Emaljekunst (Copenhagen 1986),78 and ill. Discussed by J. Cherry (with others from Lincoln, Hampshire and Lancashire), 'Recent medieval finds from Lincoln: exhibits at Ballots', Antiq. J., LXVII (1987), 367-68. The Bury examples in pI. XXIVA are (top) MH loan 1982-337A (38 x 27 mm), (middle) MH 1979-196 (25 x 20 mm), (bottom) MH 1982-48E (34 x 21 mm). Bookmark: MH 1979-286 (max. I. 25 mm): English Romaneque Art, ed. Zarnecki et al., no. 253, found a mile from the abbey; MH 1992-143 (I. 45 mm), found in West Row. This handsome and unusual object is hard either to date or to parallel- 12th-13th century? In private ownership, on loan to the Victoria and Albert Museum (Dept. of Metalwork), see English Romanesque Art, ed. Zarnecki et al., no. 242 (h. 91 mm). The close links between Mosan and English artists at this date are weil demonstrated by three ciboria, English Romanesque Art, ed. Zarnecki et al., nos 278-80. The reliquary found at Cavenham is 63 mm high and in private ownership, on loan to the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. It is compared to a piece found at Lincoln in T. Kendrick, 'Bronze figure of the Virgin and child', Antiquaries Journal, XIX, 1939,327-28. The Shere Virgin was given to the church in 1956 in memory of Eisa Barclay. The fourth of the figures was sold by Sotheby on 12 December 1996, Works of art sale, lot 27, miscatalogued as French and without provenanee. For the Langham Virgin in oak (V&A, no. A79-1925), see P. Williamson, Gothic Sculpture II4o-I30o, pI. 174, II4. It is the Gesta Sacristarum that records Hugo's doors made during abbot Anselm's terms of office (II20-48): Memoriais, ", 289-90. According to the Kitchener's Customary (Douai 553) the doars were cast: 'artifusoria': James, Abbey, 180. Leland commented of Bury 'tot portae, partim etiam aerae': see L. Toulmin Smith, ed., The Itinerary of John Leland In or About the Years I535-43," (London 1907-10), 148. This would seem to have been an expensive and unusual commission - they were the only recorded medieval bronze church doars in England, and may have been made in imitation of Suger's bronze doors at St Denis: Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St Denis, ed. E. Panofsky (2nd edn, ed. G. Panofsky­ Soergel, Princeton 1979),46-47,158-60. See also E. Parker, 'Master Hugo as sculptor: a sou ree for the style of the Bury Bibie', Gesta, xx (1981),99-109. A. Boeckler, Die Bronzetür von Verona (Marburg 1932), and U. Mende, Die Bronzetüren des Mittelalters 800-I200 (Munich 1983), 57-73 and pis 56-99. Mende dates the Verona doars to c. II35; they were cast in separate figural panels, assem bied and mounted on a wooden sub-structure. James, Abbey, 199, quoting from Arundel30, no. 27: 'in campana que dicitur Hugonis Martiris Aedmundi iussum decus hic ita fundi Anselmi donis donum manus aptat Hugonis'. Hugo must have known the illuminations to the Life and Miracles of St Edmund, painted at Bury in c. II30 (cit. in n. 22 above). We

MARIAN CAMPBELL

43.

44. 45. 46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

79

can only speculate as to whether Hugo, himself also an illuminator at Bury, might have used 50 convenient a design source for the doors; for Hugo's Bury Bible of c. 1135 see Parker, 'Master Hugo', 99-109, and Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, no. 56. Age of Chivalry, no. 124 (described as a holy water stoup); cast with the name G. Glanville, and panels depicting the Annunciation and a man blowing a hunting horn. Chevington was part of the abbey estates from the Conquest, and a favourite retreat for the abbots: S. Tymms, 'Chevington Church', PSIA, I! (18 59),434-3 8 . J. Raven, Church Bells of Suf{olk (London 1890), especially chapter 4. In Suffolk alone he identifies 56 Bury-made 'medievals': 68-69, as weil as aboUf 40 examples in neighbouring counties. Moyse's Hall houses the bell from Hallesley church made by R. Chirche. S. Badham and J. Blatchly, 'The bellfounder's indent at Bury St Edmunds', PSIA, xxxv (1981-84) 291-95; Raven, Church Bells, 69-73. The contract appears in BL, MS Add. 14848, fol. 151, dated 7 July 13 Henry VI, and is cited in Hills, 'Antiquities', 50-51. A number of Suffolk men, including in 1358 a Roger Rous de Bury, were founders in Aldgate, London: Raven, Church Bells, 14. Useful information about Curteys and his circle is in W. Schirmer, John Lydgate (London 1961), 138 ff., 145 ff. C. C. Oman, 'Medieval brass lecterns in England', Archaeol.]., LXXXVI! (1930), 138-42; Monique de Ruette, 'Les lutrins "Anglais": considérations techniques', Actes du XLIX' Congrès de la Fédération des cercles d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de Belgique, IV (Namur 1988), 71-81. The lectern, pI. 8, from the church of St Peter and St Paul, Clare, dates from C. 1500 (height 1.8 m). The arms generally used for the abbey were azure th ree ducal coronets or, often (but not always) overlaid by two arrows crossed and pointing downwards, as in pI. XXVJc (left): MH 1979-2'1, found at Horsecroft (length 41 mm), with traces of blue enamel. The blue enamelled quatrefoil badge engraved with th ree crowns and four wyverns (right) is MH 1976-263, provenance unknown (length 40 mm). Numbers of others have been found, such as a stud with three crowns and two arrows, from Horsecroft, MH 198o-47A, or those illustrated in PSIA, XXXVIII (1993), 85 and pI. 22C and d, from Polstead. More are in the reserves of the Bury St Edmunds Archaeological Unit. Another, found in London, may be the badge of either Bury or Ely, which had a red background: J. B. Ward-Perkins, London Museum Medieval Catalogue (London 1940), pI. XIX no. 2, 122. All date probably from the 14th century. The Bury abbey arms are discussed by J. Goodall, 'Heraldry in the decoration of manuscripts', Antiq. J. (forthcoming 1997)· For French and Limoges craftsmen in England, see above n. 4 and M. Campbell, 'Metalwork in England C. 1200-1400', in Age of Chivalry, 164 and n. 25. The Bury roundel is MH 1975-275 (OS) (diameter 95 mm); it was found at Barrow near Bury; see G. Zarnecki, 'Romanesque Objects at Bury St Edmund's', Apollo, LXXXV (1967), 410, fig. 8. For the Silos frontal, made in either Silos, Burgos or Limoges C. II50-70, see The Art of Medieval Spain 500-1200 (New York, Metropolitan Museum Exhibition 1993), no. 134 and ills. Otherwise three roundels in the Louvre, also enamelled with fantastic birds, provide close parallels: Enamels of Limoges 1IOO-1350 (Paris, Louvre-New York, Metropolitan Museum exhibition 1996), no. Il, Silos (?) C. 1175. Another very similar both to these and to the Bury roundel is one from Canterbury, now in the Ashmolean Museum: M. Chamot, Medieval English Enamels (London 1930), no. 8, pI. 3c. The unprovenanced crucifix figure is MH 1976-181 (OS) (140 x 47 mm), of repoussé sheet copper, partly gilt and enamelled, of C. 1200-50: Zarnecki, 'Romaneque Objects', 411. The roundel, of similar date, is MH 1976-489 (diam. 70 mm) with four attachment holes, and only traces of blue enamel. These are standard Limoges products, examples of which have been found on a large number of English sites; see for example J. Thorn and A. Goodall, 'A crucifix from the Maison Dieu, Ospringe', Archaeologia Cantiana, XCVi (1981), 372-77 and ills, also Ward-Perkins, Medieval Catalogue, 288, pI. LXXXI. The enamelled stylised figure of a saint found in Bury, similar to Ward-Perkins, ibid., pI. LXXXI, no. 3, is in the Ashmolean Museum, Dept of Antiquities, no. 6414, It would have decorated a reliquary such as that shown in M. Campbell, Medieval Enamels (London 1983), pI. 22d. MH 1976-258 (OS), its maximum length is 70 mmo It was found at Dunwich and was in the Acton collection (no. 68): Barker, Catalogue, IV, 5. The fox appears in a role rare in enamel but frequently found in medieval art, dressed as a preacher: K. Varty, Reynard the Fox, a Study of the Fox in Medieval English Art (London 1967), chap.4. The only other enamelled depiction is a 15th-century spoon in Boston, probably Flemish: N. Netzer and H. Swarzenski, Catalogue of Medieval Objects: Enamels and Glass (Boston 1986), 122-25, no. 43. W. H. Frere, Pontifical Services, 4 vols (Alcuin Club, III, 1899-1900), i, 13, 17. Quite a number of mortuary crosses have evidently been found in Bury. Some from the abbey cemetery were shown to the Society of Antiquaries by S. Tymms, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, [[[ (1855), 165-67 (with ills), where

80

53. 54. 55. 56.

57.

58.

59.

60. 61. 62.

63. 64.

65·

MEDIEVAL METALWORKING mention is made of others found in 1791 in Bury which went into private Suffolk collections. One was given to the British Museum in 1867 (Dept. of Medieval and Later Antiquities, 1867,0711. 14); five more were found in the abbey cemetery in 1903 (see Barker, West Suf{olk, cito in note 30, at 57) and are probably amongst those noted in H. R. Barker, Catalogue of Specimens in the Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Sections of Moyse's Hall Museum (Bury St Edmunds 1903) as IV 32-9 (max. width C. 150-250 mm). The custom of burying roughly cut lead crosses on the breasts of the dead seems to have been confined to the monastic orders: Ward-Perkins, Medieval Catalogue, 290. Ir is found as early as the time of Bishop Birinus (d. c. 650) who was found buried with a metal cross in Dorchester church in 1224: D. Rock, Church of Our Fathers, ed. G. Hart and W. H. Frere (London 1905), 11, 250, n. 67. R. Bruce-Mitford, 'The chapter house vestibule graves at Lincoln and the body of St Hugh of Lincoln', in Tribute to an Antiquary: Essays given to Marc Fitch, ed. F. Emmison and R. Step hens (London 1976), 127-4°. The Babwell chalice and paten co mp are most closely to the chalice of Richard de Berkyng, d. 1246, found in Lincoln, Bruce-Mitford, 'The chapter house', fig. 6. In a fragmentary state: Barker, Catalogue, IV, 49, MH 1976-184 (height C. 180 mm). Ir is of c. 1200 judging by the style of its knot, which compares with that on Hubert Walter's chalice in Canterbury: English Romanesque Art, ed. Zarnecki et al., no. 324d and 324e. The ingot is MH 1979-127 (length c. 88 mm, width 28 mm). A lead plate inscribed in Old English with an excerpt from Aelfric's preface to his first collection of homilies, and said to have been found in the grounds of the abbey at Bury, is excluded from E. Okasha's Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Non-Runic Inscriptions (Cambridge 1971), presumably on the grounds of being considered spurious; it is noticed ibid., 150. MH 1994'II1 (c. 90 x 30 mm), perhaps 15th century? Whereas England was the lead producer of Europe in the medieval period: R. Homer, 'Tin, lead and copper', Industries, ed. Blair and Ramsay, 62 ff., leaden corpuses are very rare. A 12th-century example was found in Cornwall: English Romanesque Art, ed. Zarnecki et al., no. 240, and there is another in the Cathedrallibrary at Wells. This is of copper alloy, MH A103 (height 27 mm) of the early 15th century, and shows St Edmund being shot with arrows by two archers, the latter a feature found only in later badges: J. Robinson, 'A late medieval badge from Chaucer House, Tabard St, SEl', London Archaeologist, VI (1989),66-69. Comp are a version without archers: Age ofChivalry, no. 79. Most badges are lead alloy like those of c. 13°0 ilIustrated in pI. XXVG and H. PI. XXVG shows a badge found at Queenhithe, London, now Museum of London 78.13 (height 62 mm), see B. Spencer, Catalogue of Pilgrim Badges from Medieval London (forthcoming 1996), no. zooc and ill. PI. XXVH shows a badge in the British Museum, no. 71,7-14,62 (h. 50 mm); see H. Syer Cuming, 'On signacula found in London', JBAA, XXIV (1868), 228 and pI. 17 no. 2. I am indebted to Brian Spencer both for much of this information and for his photographs. Brian Spencer, Pi/grim Souvenirs and Secular Badges: Salisbury Museum Medieval Catalogue, pt 2 (Salisbury), 48-49, fig. 134. S. Rigold, 'The St Nicholas or "Boy Bishop" tokens', PSIA, XXXIV (1981-84), 149-52. Chris Mycock of Moyse's Hall museum is currently working on their typology. For details about the mould see n. 9; it was for casting groat and half groat-sized tokens. What is remarkable about it is that it appears to be half of the very mould used to cast the taken, pI. XXIIID (lent to Moyse's Hall by Mr A. Skinner), of half-groat size, of C. 1480-1500, as both share the same tiny imperfections. The chest is 1.76 m. long and 0.4 m wide; J. Geddes and D. Sherlock, 'The church chests at Icklingham, Suffolk and Church Brampton, Northamptonshire', PSIA, XXXVI (1987), 204. Massive iron hinges and fittings are still fixed into the ab bey gate of 1327-47, the only indisputably local ironwork. The two shown in pI. XXVIIIB are of distinctively 10th- to I Ith-century date, with their long aval bows, close to examples found in Winchester: Object and Economy, ed. Biddie, 1025, fig. 325, and 1. Goodall, 'Locks and keys', ibid., IOOl-08. The keys in pI. XXVIIIc date approximately from the 13th to 15th centuries and again co mp are with examples found at Winchester, Norwich (Margeson, Norwich Household, 159-62), and London (Ward-Perkins, Medieval Catalogue, 133-45). It is unfortunately no longer possible to be sure which of the keys in Moyse's Hall were found on the abbey site; Barker, Catalogue, IV, 412-63, describes the Ford key collection as including zo from the abbey grounds. Another 47 keys found on the site from the Hodson collection were shown by Mr Henry Turner of Beech Hili to an R.A.1. meeting in Bury: Archaeol. J., XXVI (1869),4°4. Barker, Catalogue, IV, 689, MH 1976-45°. It measures 0.86 m long, 0.56 m broad, 0.43 m high, and was kept formerly in the muniment room of the Guildhall, for which it was probably made.

The Planning of the Town of Bury St Edmunds: A Probable Norman Origin By Bernard Gauthiez The plan af the tawn af Bury St Edmunds is remarkable. It dates mainly from the late IIth century, with same Saxan elements. The develapment af a new tawn, largely erasing the previaus settlement, is parallel ta the building af the huge abbey church, according ta a generallayaut enlarged in the 12th century. The design af the west part af the tawn probably belangs ta a traditian af laying-aut tawns established at Rauen in Narmandy in the early Ioth century, and used continuausly until the end af the 12th century. This paper analyses same continental Narman tawns in this traditian, and campares Bury St Edmunds ta them. It propases a chranalagy far the develapment af the tawn af Bury between the Canquest and the end af the 12th century, concluding that the tawn may have been conceived under abbat Anselm and sacrist Hervey as a gigantic shrine, sa ta speak, far the St Edmund's bady. Several elements making it possible to interpret the plan of Bury St Edmunds in a new way arise from my study of towns in Normandy. To have a better understanding of Bury,I it is first necessary to look at some of these towns, to which the Suffolk town may be compared. We shall examine Rouen, Falaise, La Ferrière sur Risie, Lisieux and then Le Petit Andely, before returning to Bury. The planning of these towns spans nearly three centuries of planning. Our method makes it possible to begin to give some validity to a line of research, on the possible Norman origins of English town-planning after I066, suggested by Maurice Beresford nearly thirty years ago, and never since followed Up.2 RODEN

(Fig. I)

In the early Ioth century, the city of Rouen was replanned according to a remarkable new pattern. 3 The layout, now nearly disappeared because of the I944 bombings, had as one main axis Gros Horloge Street. Grand Pont Street and Carmes Street were placed at right angles, forming a transverse axis. Four pairs of streets were placed symmetrically on both sides of Gros Horloge Street. The east side of the main axis is formed by the late Roman cathedral group of two basilicae. The archaeological excavations show that the Gallo-Roman streets had a different grid pattern. 4 When, in the Ioth century, the city was laid-out anew, the existing ways into the city were modified, in order to fit with the new gates opened through the late Roman wall, and to link the major streets with the suburbium. So the Gros Horloge Gate appeared, and in addition a gate north of Carmes Street and probably another one east of St Romain Street. 5 Some of the new accesses to the city were made at this time, such as the extra-mural part of Gros Horloge Street and Beauvoisine Street north of Carmes Street. Others were built later, like the Martainville causeway east of St Romain Street, possibly in the early Irth century,6 and in the mid I2th century a new bridge crossing the river Seine was built facing Grand Pont Street. 7 From the shape of some towns in Normandy, we may conclude that this new planning in Rouen, capitalof the Norman state, had a deep influence. The common

PLANNING OF THE TOWN OF BURY ST EDMUNDS

200

FIG.

1.

Plan of the city area of Rouen, from the 1827 survey, and reconstruction of the early 1oth-century new layout

BERNARD GAUTHIEZ

201

pattern of these town plans is a composition based on one major axis. lt generally involves the churches, the market place which often had covered markets, halles, and sometimes the castIe. The major axis is made of a very wide street, wider than Gros Horloge Street in Rouen, so wide as to give enough space for a long halle, common in the small towns, the bourgs, and sometimes enough room even for the parish church; this was the layout, for example, at Le Neubourg and La Ferrière sur Risie. There the major axis is a large public square, associating a church, a cemetery and a market. The general shape of this wide street is a spindie, or a more or less open V. When the new settlement required a more ambitious plan, symmetrical streets appeared, as at Rouen, or for example at Breteuil sur !ton and Falaise, a town we shall examine. For the IIth and 12th centuries, I have chosen four towns which illustrate quite weil this generallayout principle and its chronological evolution: Falaise in the département of Calvados, La Ferrière sur Risle in the département of Eure, a part of Lisieux in Calvados, and Le Petit Andely in Eure. Historical sources are generally lacking to date with any precision the new settlements on these sites, except for Le Petit Andely; and archaeology cannot be of any help, except at La Ferrière sur Risie, where only the 'motte' has been explored, and which is, in any case, at some di stance from the town. FALAISE

(Fig. 2)

Before the destructions caused by the Second World War in 1944, the topography of the town of Falaise was organized along a north-south axis linking the gate called 'Porte du Ch means th that at the 'swine

for which there was wood' diminished between 1066 and 1086. Areas are given as reported in acres. The earlier

acreages should be treated with camion; medieval documents aften underestimate the areas of woods by at least 40%.

'Woodfor 50 many swme

History ro86- I 3 00

History

Post-medieval history

History since

I950

I3 00 - I 55°

I086

NORFOLK Blo Norton (part)

Ia ra

Not heard of again

Bressingham 20+6+6 (part) Brockdish (part) Brooke 30 Broome (part) Buckenham near Acle Caistor St Edmund's 16 Not heard of Dickleburgh again Gissing (part) Not heard of 15 again Harling (part) Howe (part) 400

Islington (part) Kirby Cane (part) Langhale in Kirkstead Loddon

6

60

Marlingford Mendham (Norfolk part) Middleton (part)

52

Not heard of again Not heard of again?

75-ac. wood survived until I9th cent.

PIace-name PI ace-name 'Wood Farm'

Brooke Wood 157 ac.

Coniferized

Howe Grove; Culyers Grove

9-ac. fragment of Howe Grove coniferized; Culyer's Grove (3 ac.) intact

2 groves - history unknown

Town Wood 9 ac., Black's Grove 9 ac.

Loddon Wood; Hares Grove; Spitland or HalesHall W. (history unknown)

Hales Hall Wood 23 ac.; Hares Grove 12 ac.; Loddon Wood 7 ac.

THE ABBEY WOODS

154 'Woodfor 50 many swine' I086 Morningthorpe OldorNew Buckenham (part) Roydon (part) Semere in Dickleburgh Shelfanger (small part) Shimpling (small part) Shotesham (part) Southery South Runeton Runcton

History 13° 0-155°

Post-medieval history

Doubtful identity

12 12

4

History since 1950

Nothing survives

Not heard of again Not heard of again Not heard of again

16 acres Not heard of again

Starston (part) Thorpe Abbots

60---+4 0

Tibenham (part) Tivetshall

80

Topcroft (part) Wendling

History 0 I086- 130 300

100

Baldyngshaw . 1 copplce coppice 1

Thorpe Wood 136 ac.,> mostly grubbed 18th cent.

A coppice-wood3 Grubbed 17th or 18th cent. Bush Wood (doubtfully ancient), Long Wood 55 ac. Mostly grubbed Honeypot Wood; in Middle Ages 'Dykewood House' farm with fields suggesting former wood of 280 ac.

3 fragments (34 ac.), part coniferized

Tivetshall Wood 8 ac. Both grubbed 1950S Honeypot W. 23 ac. (Norfolk Naturalists' Trust)

WEST SUFFOLK (excluding places wholly in Breekland) Breckland) BardweIl Barningham Barton, Great Bradfield Combust Bradfield St George & St Clare

Not heard of again? 4

Not heard of again? Monks' Park Mouncis parke Monks' Park Wood Felshamhall and 1of 130 ac.; 216 ac.; Felshamhall 12th cent. Monks' Park intact Smalewde, Ffelsham halle Wood 104 ac.; Free (Suffolk Wildlife Wachereshahe 80 ac.; Wood 65 ac.; Chensil Trust); Hollox Grove wood, Morheg ffreewoode Grove I6 ac.; and t of Monks' Park 12th cent. 85 ac.; morage Rawhall Wood I2 ac.; grubbed I960s; Free 180 ac. of & lamlyth Hedge Wood I2 ac.; Woodpartly wood + another 50 ac.; waxsall Upper Waxhall Grove replanted; Bromley wood of 15 ac., coppies 17 ac.; 9 ac.; Bromley Wood Wood replanted; 13th cent.' rowie & 7 ac.; Lower Waxhall Mardlands and halyocke Grove 7 ac.; Waxhalls Groves 2t ac,s Mardlands Wood survive 7 ac.; Hollicks Wood 5 ac.; Bringsley Grove

OLIVER RACKHAM 'Woodfor so many swine

History

History

I086- 13 00

13 00 - 155°

Post-medieval history

155 History since 1950

J

I086

Brettenham

Brockley Bury St Edmund's Chelsworth Chevington

Cockfield

{Ryses Wood pIace-name] pI ace-name] 24

> 130 ac. wood Smithwood, in 1270s'

Coney Weston

4

Not heard of again?

Drinkstone (part) EImswelI

80

80 ac. in 1279"

20+4 4

not identifiabIe

Felsham Gedding Greatt Ashfield Grea Great Fakenham (small part) Groton

IO

Hawstead

3

Hepworth

6

Nothing remains

Stoneyhill Wood 8ac.; Park Wood; 6 others prob. grubbed in 18th cent. 8

Park Wood (21 ac.) replanted; remains of Stoneyhill W. incorporated into Ickworth Park t of Bull's Wood (30 ac.) survives (Suffolk WiIdIife Trust)

Not heard of again?

Park 12th cent: Ioo+4 Blessenhage early 12 cent. 7

6

Ryses Wood 9 ac., grubbed 18th-I9th cent.

Litlehay Wood, Old Park Wood, Brentwood 'O

Bulls Wood sr ac., Likely Wood 37 ac., Old Park 38 ac., several small woods-most grubbed in the 18th & 19th cent.

Fragment of East Wood Whayts Wood 40 ac., 2 woods of grubbed 17th cent.;14 (I6 ac.) survives 180 ac. in 1302;12 Whayte East Wood 144 ac., mostly grubbed 19th woode 30 ac., Estwoode cent. 132 ac. in 13 I 547 Felsham Wood (26 ac.) t Remainder of Felsham Wood and Glebe grubbed c. 1942; Grove (2.4 ac.) intact GIebeGrove Doubtful

50 + IO ac. ca calIed lIed Growton Wood LindhoId?15 37 ac.'6

Grotton Wood 50 ac.

Briers Grove IO ac.; Okehill Wood 39 ac.; Hall or Church Wood 18 ac.; several other groves,17 nearly all grubbed in 19th cent. 14 ac. in 1279'8

Could survive as part of Fakenham Great Wood Groton Wood 50 ac., 17 ac. of which is medieval wood (Suffolk WiIdIife Trust) Fragment of Briers Grove (4 ac.) remains

THE AB ABBEY BEY WOODS

15 6 'Woodfor so many swine

History 1086-1 108613 00

History

Post-medieval history

History since 1950

13 00 - 155 0

1086

Monk WOOd19

Hessett

Hinderclay

60

12 ac. in 127921

Honington

2

Hopton

2

Not heard of again? Not heard of again? Lithlehey Wood 12th cent. 22

Horringer

Hunston

12

Ickworth

24

Ia + 9 ac. in 128 325 Woodbank authorized 12 5426

6

2 ac. in 128328

Ixworth (part) Langham Layham (part)

Monk Wood; Millfields Wood 34 ac.; Breachwood Ia ac.;20 Hessett Wood (I I ac.) and West Coppice (Il ac.) grubbed 18th cent.; several other small woods Stanberowe Hinderclay Wood half Wood 200 ac., grubbed 18th-I9th CalkeWood, cent.; Calke Wood Playford Wood

Whytsall or Whiteshaw Wood 29 ac. in 1738,24 part Whiteside woode 23 ac.; 6 grubbed in 19th cent. other coppicewoods from! to 18 acres23 Long Grove 29 ac.

Myche WOOd29

Lindsey 60

Manston

2

Manton Market Weston

4

Remainder of Hinderclay Wood grubbed 1970s; fragments left; Calke Wood (23 ac.) survlves

fragment of Whitshaw W. (12 ac.), part coniferized

Long Grove survives

Lound Wood 49 ac. in 1665; 3 other woods of 9 to 14 ac. 27

Remains of Lound Wood incorporated into Ickworth Park Surviving Bangrove Wood prob. not Bury's

Herst Wood 12 ac., Ripmers Grove 3O 10 ac.

Rowleys Wood (Ia ac.) and Layham Grove (8 ac.) survive; not known if Bury's Howe Wood (38 ac.) intact Lineage (1I8 ac.) and Spelthorne (44 ac.) Woods largely coniferized (but being rehabilitated); 4 Kentwell woods intact, I rep!anted; I Hospita! Grove intact

Howe Wood 40 ac.

Long Melford

Monk Wood (28 ac.) grubbed 1960s; Breachwood (9 ac.) amalgamated with enlarged MelIfield Wood

JElmessethe Elmesete Wood Lineage Wood; wood 12th 260 ac.; Lenyng Spelthorne Wood cent. made into Wood 90 ac.; (part grubbed in 19th Spelterne W. cent.); traces of Litde a park 13th cent. 31 80 ac.; Little Park; 5 groves (4 to Park 60 ac.; 3 9 ac.) on Kentwell groves on manor; man or; I Hospita! Hospital Grove survives manor Not heard of again? Brockley alias Weston Wood 38 ac.

Brockley Wood (44 ac.) half replanted

OLIVER RACKHAM 'Woodfor 50 many swine'

History

History

I086- I 3 00

I30 0- I 55°

Post-medieval history

157 History since I950

I086

Monks' Eleigh Newton

8--+6

100+4 Boscus de Leinoenhala, part grubbed IIth cent. 35

Preston St Mary Rattlesden (part)

4

Rede

6

Rickinghall Inferior

Rougham

Rushbrooke Sapiston Saxham (greater part)

Semer

22 ac. in 127533 29 ac. in 127934

Nowton Pakenham

woods all belonged to Bishop of Ely? Frauncys Wood;3. Great, Brush, Brummage Woods total29 ac.

Francis Wood (18 ac.) replanted; 16 ac. remain of 3 other woods (history uncertain)

Westhalle Wodde 82 ac., Westhall Wood (82 ac.) 3 woods of 60+8 Swineffrith intact - appears to be Wood c. 1240; 140 ac. in 1302; of which 12 ac. ancient secondary Westhall Wood grubbed c. 160039 120 ac. m woodland 15423 • 127937 Tinker's Wood now Chevenes Wood, Eldon Wood; Chevin's 21 ac.; Chevin's Monkswood"" Wood; Tinkers Grove Wood (30 ac.) 6t ac.; several ot others hers replanted Fate uncertain Northwood41 Great Grove is modern Hearse Wood 22 ac., Hersewood 49 ac. 80+5 3I ac. in 127942 Herstwood, Little Papely Wood (inside which 6 fields Lawners 13 ac., Lamers Wood were made), Lawners Wood,and Wood, Little Papleys 9 ac., Twist Wood all several others intact Wood and others Fragment (12 ac.) Semer Wood c. 50 ac. Park 12th cent." survives

Somerton (half) Stanningfield

Stanton

Mana Wood 71 ac.32 Nothing survives grubbed 19th cent. High W. 20 ac., Alstrop High Wood; Alstrop Wood 6 ac. intact Wood Nothing survived 19th cent. Pakenham Wood 125 ac. Half grubbed 1960s, most of remainder replanted I970S

2

Dutmoss, Durmoss, Hall, Hussey, Ryecroft Woods, total 55 ac. -last 3 grubbed 19th cent. Kiln Wood 37 ac.; Low Wood 27 ac.; High Wood 21 ac.; Haw or Furr Wood 22 ac. Many groves, not known if ancient Abbots alias Black Horse Wood

8 + 10

Stowlangtoft

20

Thelnetham

30

Thurlow (small part)

6

Not identifiabIe

2 Dutmoss Woods (7 and 5 ac.) intact

Fir Wood and most of Low Wood grubbed; High and Kiln Woods survive Much survives Black Horse Wood (44 ac.) grubbed Could survive

THE ABBEY WOODS

15 8 'Woodfor so many swine'

History

History

I086- I 3 00

I3 00 - I 55°

Post-medieval history

History since

I950

I086

Thurston

8+3

Tostock Walsham-leWillows

30

Wattisfield

12

Whepstead Woolpit

Heyhalle,

Northaughe, Lavedys Woods 45

Nothing survived

Nothing survived 19th cent. not heard of

again?

Westley Whatfield (part) Whelnetham

Not heard of

again?

Not heard of

again?

48 +3 ac. in 128 344

10 40 +5 20

12 woods of 22 to

43 ac., total

232 ac.

60 ac. in 127946 Wollpytt Wood 95 ac. 47

Link Wood (mostly not Coniferized ancient?) II woods survived (I 1 wood grubbed: 3t replanted) to late 19th coniferized; 6t intact cent., total 180 ac. Woolpit Wood II4 ac. Mostly coniferized; bisected by new road

EAST SUFFOLK Beccles

8

Bedingfield (small part) Brockford

8

Chippenhall in Fressingfield Finningham (part) Harleston Kenton Marlesford Mendham Mickfield MonkSoham Oakley (part) Palgrave Redgrave

Southwold Stoke Ash (part) Stonham (part)

Not heard of again Not heard of again

40

Brokeforthe wood4 • 160 ..... 100 Wood 'for timber Not heard of for the church' again 12th cent'" 8 Not heardof

again

10

Not heard of

again

..... 300 Not heard of 360..... 360 again Not heard of

again

Not heard of

5+2+4 5+ 2 +4 Notheardof again

40

120

Redgrave Wood 20-ac. wood survived into 18th cent. 5O 45 ac.; Freyth Coppies 44 ac.; Lytel Coppies 15 ac.; park

2

Nothing remains

'Wood Hall' farm 25-aC. wood survived into 18th cent. st

OLIVER RACKHAM 'Woodfor so many swine' Io86 Thorndon (small part) Thornham Magna (small part) Thrandeston (part) Uggeshall (part)

4

Unidentifiable

4

Not heard of again Not heard of again

4

Wetherden Weybread

Ia

Wortham Wyverstone (small part)

History

Post-medieva/ history

History since I950

I3 00 - I 55°

Unidentifiable

Waldringfield Westhorpe (part)

Wickham Skeith (part) Worlingworth

History Io86- I 300

I59

4 100 14 4

Erdhall & Bu'hall Not heard of again woods" 2 small woods may have Fragment survives? survived Not heard of again Not heard of again Giddin Wood rr ac.

Gittin Wood survives

not heard of again

ESSEX Benton in Witham Colne (small part) Harlow (large part) Latton Litde Waltham Stapleford Abbots

50 40 100

Not heard of again Unidentifiable ?Harlow Bush Comman Harlow Park (55 ac.) & Harlow Park mainly coniferized Wood, total c. 180 ac. Latton Comman, Mark Latton Park & Randalls Bushes, Latton Park Grove (54 ac.) coniferized Wood, total c. 200 ac. Sheepcotes Wood Sheepcot Wood 45 ac. mostly survives Nothing remains Stapleford Comman (wood-pasture) c. 4°° ac., destroyed 19th cent.

200

30

25 0

Wrabness CAMBRIDGESHIRE March (small part) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4

Not heard of again

SRO/I: HA68/48~75r.

SRO/I: HA68/48~753.

SRO/I: HA68/48~75r.

PRO: DU4215; CUL: MS Gg+4, fol. 120.

rr/477. 18// rr E318 /477.

PRO: E3 Feuda/ Documents. ibid.

SRO/B: E7h3.3/6; HA507.

Pinchbeck Register, II, 140.

160

10 rr 12 13 14 15 16 I? 18

19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48 59 50

sr

52

THE ABBEY WOODS

SRO/B: Acc. 2481 Lot 546. Pinchbeck Register (note 9). E. Powell, A Suffolk hundred in the year I283 (Cambridge 1910). PRO: E3I8/352. SRO B: HA796rr/6; 2753/7/9. Pinchbeck Register (note 9), 2, 60. G. W. Robinson (ed.), Winthrop Papers (Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston 1929), 18. SROIB: E1212; E2h6h.!. Pinchbeck Register (note 9). W. A. Copinger, The Manors ofSuffolk: Notes on their History and Devolution (London I905-rr). SRO/I: HBI29 3445 Box I; SRO B: E312212.I8. Pinchbeck Register (note 9). CUL: MS Ff.2.33, fal. 342. PRO: E3I8/352; J. Gage [Rakewode], The History and Antiquities of Suffolk. Thingoe Hundred (London 1838). SRO B: P568; 106/1,2. Powell (note 12). Gage (note 23), 278. Anon., Ickworth Survey Boocke. Ano 1665 (Ipswich 1893). Powell (note 12). SRO/I: HD/I95(I045).

SRO/I: P 429.

fB,7 I -7 2 .

Canterbury: Dean and Chapter Map 25.

Pinchbeck Register (note 9).

ibid.

Feudal Documents.

SRO/B: 2588/3; HA507.

Bodleian Suffolk Charters 43; Pinchbeck Register (nate 9).

Pawell (note 12).

SRO I: HA240 2508/1466.

PSIA, v, 87.

Anon., Rushbrook parish registers 1567 to 1850 (Boath, Woodbridge 1908).

Pinchbeck Register (note 9).

Douglas (note 35).

Pawell (note 12).

Information from D. P. Dymond.

Pinchbeck Register (nate 9).

I8/35 /35 2. PRO: E3 I8 PRO: EIOI/r49/38. Douglas (nate 35). SRO/I: HA240h508/1263[3h]; HA24012508/479[I/4I4]. o/r/62·3· SRO/I: HB8·5 HB8·5o SRO/I: HA68:48~ 57!.

The Lost Canterbury Prototype of

the rrth-Century Bury St Edmunds Psalter

By William N oel

This paper considers the cycle of illustrations in the margins of the IIth-century Bury St Edmunds Psalter. Doubt surrounds the nature of this cycle of images. Is it an attempt by one artist to construct a cycle of marginal illustrations from scratch, or did he base his designs on those in a pre-existing manuscript? I seek to demonstrate that the forst and last illustrations to the Psalms in the Bury Psalter were present in a prototype at Canterbury in the early decades of the IIth century. Building on the work of Robert Harris and Adelheid Heimann, I will compare same of Bury's images to those in the Odbert Psalter, the Utrecht Psalter, and the Harley Psalter in order to demonstrate that the artists of the Harley Psalter had access to a Psalter with marginal illustrations very similar to Bury, and that the artist of the Bury Psalter employed a similar manuscript when he constructed his own cycle. In setting a context for the inventions of the Bury artist, I will also demonstrate the inventive quality of the Harley Psalter, which is sa aften considered as a mere copy of the Utrecht Psalter. The Bury St Edmunds Psalter (Rome, Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica MS Reg. lat. 12) is one of the most celebrated manuscripts surviving from I !th-century England. 1 It is also one of the most problematic. There is little consensus as to its date, but it cannot have been made before 1032 1032.2 .2 It was certainly made for Bury St Edmunds, and palaeographers and liturgists have generally suggested a Bury origin for the manuscrip manuscript/ t/ but on iconographic grounds it has also been attributed to Christ Church, Canterbury. The main reason for art historical interest in the Bury Psalter is the illustrations that are found in the margins of the manuscript, placed beside the verses appropriate to them. For example, on the inner margin of fol. 37\ next to Psalm 23, verse 8, is the strong and powerful King of Glory, and opposite him, on the outer margin is a monk lifting his soul to the Lord illustrating Psalm 24, 1. Even though they illustrate separate Psalms we are obviously meant to understand the monk as genuflecting before the King of Glory on the other side of the page. The purpose of this paper is to define the extent to which the Bury Psalter artist depended on an earlier prototype. Two seminal works have been written on the imagery in the margins of Bury, a brilliant and sadly unpublished dissertation by Robert Harris, and an article by Adelheid Heimann. 4 This paper re-examines some of the observations of Harris and Heimann, and further defines the debts of the Bury artist in the light of connections between Bury and the Harley Psalter (BL Harley MS 603). The connections are more extensive than has hitherto been realized. THE ODBERT PSALTER AND BURY

Good evidence that Bury was at least in part derived from an earlier manuscript is provided by the Odbert Psalter (Boulogne, Bibliothèque Municipale MS 20). This manuscript was made at St-Bertin in 999, and marginal images were added to it shortly afterwards. 5 Harris demonstrated that all seven of the images in the margins of Odbert are forebears of images applied to the same verses in Bury Bury.6 .6 Although the Bury drawings

162

THE LOST CANTERBUR CANTERBURY Y PROTOTYPE

are placed exactly beside the relevant verses of the Psalm text, those in Odbert were not, but rather were squeezed in where there was space left by the gloss, sometimes at same distance from the verse to which they refer. Thus, in Odbert, the King of Glory to Psalm 23, 8 is displaced from the text to which he refers, and he is separated from the monk of Psalm 24, I. Based on the fact that the illustrations in Odbert are displaced, Harris makes a cogent case for supposing that there was a model for Odbert's images in which the illustrations were placed beside the relevant verse, as they are in Bur Bury? y? He also considered that the marginal cyele in Odbert, which only extends to Psalm 41, may not be a complete reflection of its model. Since Odbert was made at St-Bertin, it cannot be from Odbert, but rather from its exemplar, that the Bury drawings are descended. Harris compared the style of the drawings in Odbert to those by the Anglo-Saxon artist of a Gospel baak also made at St-Bertin in c. 1000, Boulogne, Bibliothèque Municipale MS II, and from this comparison he conjectured that Odbert's model was itself Anglo-Saxon. 8 The Bury drawings can only reinforce the suggestion that the model for Odbert was indeed made in England. Harris constructed a group of related manuscripts, the lost Anglo-Saxon model for Odbert, Odbert itself, and Bury, and he called this group the 'marginal recension'. He left open the extent to which the model for Odbert lay behind the images in Bury that Odbert does not inelude. Gameson considered that, apart from those images related to Odbert, the cyele of marginal illustrations in Bury was first compiled itselC C One of the reasans put forward for this is the sporadic nature in the manuscript itsel of the Bury cyele considered as a whoie. However, Odbert's cyele is even more sporadic than Bury's, and the Bury artist adapted every one of its marginal images. The marginal recension seems to have been fitful from its inception. I can find na fault in Harris's reasoning, and the sporadic nature of the Bury cyele is not an indicator of the number of sources used by the Bury artist. THE UTRECHT PSALTER, ODBERT AND BURY

The model that Odbert and Bury shared was itself indebted to another manuscript altogether, the Utrecht Psalter, Utrecht, University Library MS 32.10 This great Carolingian manuscript was at Christ Church, Canterbury by the early Inh century, where it was used to make the Harley Psalter, a manuscript th that at I shall discuss shortly. Harris pointed to Odbert's illustration to Psalm 12, 4, as a elear demonstration of its connection with Utrecht. l l The verse reads: Enlighten my eyes, th that at I never sleep in death

In bath manuscripts the Psalmist is similarly hunched, with a hand raised to his cheek, and his fingers spread out. Bury's illustration to this verse, on fol. 28, has been sa transformed that, if the Odbert image did not survive, we would be hard put to trace Bury's ultimate debt to Utrecht. 12 Bury shows debts to the imagery of Utrecht independent of those seen in Odbert. The Bury illustration to Psalm III is derived from the centre of Utrecht's image to the same Psalm, as is the illustration to Psalm 103, 14-15, and the illustration to Psalm 7, 14-15. Harris and Heimann bath note that the illustration to Psalm 7 is based on the imagery of Utrecht,13 but they are curiously reticent about the extent of the parallels between Utrecht and Bury. A question can now be asked of Bury that may shed light on its relationship with Odbert. Did the Bury artist derive the imagery that it has in comman with Utrecht from

WILLlAM NOEL

16 3

more than one source, or just one exemplar? If just one exemplar supplied the Utrecht imagery in Bury, then this exemplar was a member of the marginal recension, and Odbert was a partial reflection of this exemplar. THE HARLEY PSALTER AND BURY

The Harley Psalter was made over a period of about one hundred years, from c. IOIO-C. II30, at Christ Church, Canterbury. Canterbury.14 14 It was the work of eight artists, two artist scribes, and two scribes, and, despite their efforts, the manuscript was never scholars; ars; Artists A-F worked before finished. The artists have been labelled A-H by schol C. 1°32, artist G worked in the second half of the I nh century, and artist H in the first half of the 12th. All the artists of Harley used the Utrecht Psalter as an exemplar, but there are many differences between the two books. Since Bury was made af after ter 1°32, and was made for Bury St Edmunds, it was probably not available to any of the Harley artists. None the less there are a number of iconographic connections between Bury and Harley. Harley is of course very different from Bury. Indeed, it is conventionally understood as a copy of Utrecht. In Utrecht, the illustrations of individual verse are combined into visually coherent compositions with an impressive sen sense se of spatial depth. The illustrations in Odbert and Bury are constructed on altogether different principles. By keeping suggestions of spatial depth to a minimum, the illustrations can have a coherence across pages of text, and even between opposite pages. This possibility is exploited much more freely in Bury than in Odbert. It can be seen in the Bury illustration to Psalm 7, 13-15, where the demon, who is placed next to verse 13 at the bottom of fo!. 24 24v v fires arrows at the woman enclosing children in her cloak placed next to verses 14 and 15 at the top of the following recto. Another example is on fols 87v-88 in the Bury manuscript, containing the text to Psalm 78; the Jews on the outer margin of Bury's fo!. 87v throw stones across the text block at Stephen Protomartyr on its inner margin. Stephen himself looks up to the manus dei on the inner margin of fo!. 88, as his soul in the form of a bird ascends to it. The manus dei itself is obviously the hand of the First Person of the Trinity, and the Trinity is placed in the upper margin of fo!' 88. It seems th that at this characteristic has not previously been observed in other Inh-century Anglo-Saxon manuscripts. Nevertheless, the same characteristic can be found in Harley which is so indebted to quite other principles of book decoration. One of the differences between the illustration to Psalm 3I in Harley and that in Utrecht is the little figure at the bottom left-hand corner of the Harley illustration, on fo!. 18 (P!. XXXV A and P!. XXXVB). The inset is a detail of this figure. Despite his size, his gestures are quite clear, he is looking to the left and pointing up to the Lord in the illustration to Psalm 31. Within the context of the illustration to Psalm 3I, which was executed by artist B, he is unaccountable. However, at the bottom of the previous verso is an illustration th that at was after ter the illustration by artist B had been added to a blank space by artist G, decades af finished. It is made up of elements derived from the illustration that heads Psalm 30. The little man in artist B's illustration seems to be looking to the composition on the previous verso. He is executed in a red si simil milar ar to that which is used by artist G, very different to the muted colours employed by B, and artist G added details to illustrations in Harley that had already been executed. 15 Artist G added this figure to B's illustration, and the figure makes an effective link between the Lord in Psalm 31 and the composition at the bottom of the previous page. This man is best understood as an integral part of

r64

THE LOST CANTERBURY PROTOTYPE

an effective précis of the illustration to Psalm 30 in Utrecht, linking the Psalmist on the verso to the Lord on the recto. Artist G's composition runs across the page spread, and the visuallink is made with nothing more substantial than a glance, as in the case of St Stephen in Bury's illustration to Psalm 78. Moreover, like Bury's illustration to Psalms 23 and 24 discussed at the beginning of the paper, artist G has used the imagery of one Psalm to bolster the imagery of another. Indeed, in culling imagery from the Utrecht tradition, and placing it in the margin of Harley, artist G was performing the same operation as was performed by the artist of the model for Odbert and Bury. In the work of Harley's artist E there is another parallel with the marginal recension. Artist E inserted sketches in blank areas of otherwise completed pages of Harley. One of the most ambitious of these is on fol. 53, at the end of Psalm 104, the great Psalm of thanksgiving that David sang af after ter entering his City with the Ark of the Covenant, depicted on fol. 52v (PI. XXXVIA) . The lower group of the angel striking at two demons is derived from artist F's earl earlier ier illustration to Psalm 124 (PI. XXXVIB) XXXVIB)..16 This illustrates verse 3 of Psalm 124, For the Lord will not Ie Ieave ave the rad of the wicked upon the lot of the just, that the just stretch not their hands to iniquity

Like Psalm 104, Psalm 124 is a Psalm celebrating the relationship between the Lord and the people of Israel. Psalm 104 is longer, and describes the wanderings and trials of Israel in detail. But the illustration by artist D to this Psalm, on fol. 52 v, imitating Utrecht, refers to very few specific verses, and we see only the tribe celebrating the Lord. However, what in Psalm 124, 3 is noted as observed action by the Lord, is in Psalm 104, 15 turned into his direct commando Touch not my anointed, and do na harm to my praphets

Artist E wished to extend the D's visual interpretation of this Psalm's text and chose verse 15 and the appropriate imagery for it. If we look at artist E's illustration on the recto, two people are looking towards the Lord on the preceding verso from across the page, while underneath an angel is ensuring that the demons do not touch them, in this case with a flail and not the rod demanded by the text of Psalm 124. Next to Bury's text of Psalm 104, the sons of J acob are depicted in pairs, clearly referring to the sons of Jacob mentioned in verse 6. However, Reuben and Simeon, the first of these sons, are placed not where there is room for them opposite this verse, but opposite verse 15, the very verse illustrated by artist E in Harley (PI. XXXVIc). Since the rest of Bury's images gain their meaning from the text that is beside them, I think the same is true here: the point is not only that they are J acob's sons, but also that they are the Lord's chosen people and that they are not to be touched. I suggest that it was an illustration very like this one that encouraged artist E to elaborate upon the same verse in Harley, and that therefore the two people in E's illustration represent the two untouchable sons of Jacob whom he could squeeze into the small space that was left by the scribe. It seems that two of the Harley artists did have access to a Psalter with marginal illustrations, and th that at this Psalter shared some imagery with that in Bury. In fact there are other parallels between the two books. Harris noted th that at connections between artist F of Harley and the imagery in Bury are extensive, and that they are present from F's very first illustration: the protective cloak of Samuel around David in the Bury illustration to Psalm 88, 21, alludes to contemporary adoption rites in similar fashion to the protective cloak of the joyful mother of children of Psalm II2, 8 in HarleyY In

WILLIAM NOEL

I65

Harris's words, the Bury artist and artist F we were re working 'in a related visual world'Y But one of his examples of shared imagery presupposes a closer relationship than that. 19 In his illustration to Psalm II5, on fol. I20v , the Bury artist makes a figure hold up a cup right next to the words of verse 13 (PI. XXXVIIA) : I will take the chalice of salva salvati tion on

This figure is directly comparable with an almost identical one in artist F's illustration to the same Psalm on fol. 59v in Harley (PI. XXXVIIB). It would be useful to know whether Harley was dependent on the marginal recension, or vice versa. Taking advantage of a miscalculation by the scribe, artist F chose to illustrate Psalm II5 twice; the iconographic connection with the Bury manuscript is in the second of his two illustrations. The pose of the figure holding the chalice used by artist F in his first illustration to this Psalm, on fol. 59, is taken from the figure holding the chalice to Christ Crucified in Utrecht's image for the same Psalm, supporting the Lord balanced on the top of the cup referred to in verse 13. By the time artist F depicted his second illustration to Psalm II5, he had al ready portrayed the verse that is illustrated in Bury. None the less, in a different way, artist F referred to the same verse again. The Harley artist was given the opportunity to make two illustrations of Psalm II5 verse 13, a verse with a strongly eucharistic tone. 20 He adapted his first image from Utrecht, and the central figure of the second from the marginal recension. Since the artists of Harley and those of the marginal recension were both indebted to Utrecht, it is surprising that we can find connections between Harley and the marginal recension that are independent of Utrecht. Besides the connections already mentioned between Harley and Bury, there are others. For example, Harris noted that in his illustration to Psalm 48 Harley's artist G shows the woman weeping at the tomb with a similar hair and facial type to that wom by the distraught 'Rachel' of Psalm 78 in Bury.21 Bury. 21 In fact there is some evidence th that at the 12th-century artist of Harley also had access to the marginal recension. Psalm 60, 7 reads Thou will add days to the days of the king, his years even for ever

As Heimann has demonstrated, the Bury illustration to this verse represents Hezekiah, who looks on in supplication as God the Creator masters His sundial. 22 The story comes from the second Book of Kings. Hezekiah wants a sign that the Lord will indeed add fifteen years to his days as He promised, and the Lord obliges by making the shadow go back 10 degrees on the sundial of Ahaz. This image does not portray the Lord adding days to the king's life, although that is what is in the Psalm text, but rather portrays the sign indicating th that at the Lord would do what promised. In Utrecht, by contrast, we have a literal interpretation of the Psalm text. The Lord is bestowing a laurel upon the king, by implication adding days to his days. But in Harley the miracle is portrayed in a manner similar to that in Bury. As Heimann observed, the 12th­ century artist of Harley replaces the laurel by the Sun which the Lord has brought back from its true course. This is a more standard way of representing the miracle than th that at devised by the Bury artist. 23 The portrayals of the miracle in Harley and Bury are obviously very different. In Bury, the Lord moves the sundial, in Harley he moves the Sun. Heimann did not consider the two illustrations to be connected in any direct way. However, in the light of other parallels with Bury, I would suggest that it was an image similar to that which we see in the Bury manuscript that provoked the Harley artist to so subtly deviate from his exemplar. 12

r66

THE LOST CANTERBUR CANTERBURY Y PROTOTYPE

Despite its debt to Utrecht, Harley provides evidence th that at there was a Psalter at Christ Church with marginal illustrations in the early 1Ith century. This Psalter had some imagery in common with the Bury Psalter. This same Psalter may still have been at Canterbury in the 12th century, since Harley's artist H was indebted to it. In the next section I wil! demonstrate that this Psalter was not only related to Harley and Bury, but also that it was related to Odbert. HARLEY, ODBER TAND BUR Y

Two of the images that Harley has in common with Bury are also to be found in Odbert. In Bury's il!ustration to Psalm 21, 20-22, the Lord is stretching out his hand from a mandorla, while his legs disappear behind cloud below the knees. This drawing is clearly related to a si simil milar ar one in Odbert. In Utrecht, the Lord of Psalm 21 is very different. Although the lower half of his body is cut off by cloud, he has no mandorla, and, although his right hand is extended, it holds no weapons. Artist B of Harley, who followed the Utrecht exemplar closely, did not finish his il!ustration to this Psalm. It was in fact finished by artist G. Artist G is responsible for the mandorla th that at encloses the Lord in Harley. This mandorla has a striking resemblance to the one in Bury. If it were not for the Odbert drawing, one might suppose that the inventive Bury artist derived his composition from the various elements in the Harley manuscript. Clearly this was not the case, and, if the connection is anything more than coincidence, it is that Harley's artist G was provoked into adapting artist B's composition by a drawing in the marginal recension. The mandorla is a common motif, and, in this case, evidence for a connection with the marginal recension is slight. But the evidence for such a connection is reinforced by another artist's debt to the same image in the marginal recension. Psalm 21, verses 20-22, reads But thou, 0 Lord, rem remave ave not thy help to a distance from me: look to my defence. Deliver,O God, my soul from the sword: my only one from the Hand of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth: and my lowness from the hams of the unicom.

As Harris noted, there is a formal parallel between Bury's il!ustration to these verses (PI. XXXVIIIA), and artist F's il!ustration to Psalm II9 in Harley (PI. XXXVIIIc). XXXVIIIc).24 24 Both Harley and Bury make the Lord himself deliver the weapons to the Psalmist by stetching forth from a mandorla that is cut off at its base. In both manuscripts the Lord and the Psalmist hold a spe spear ar and a shield, and hold them in a similar way. Whereas the spear and shield held by the Psalmist and the Lord in the Bury manuscript ca came me from the exemplar that was also responsible for Odbert (PI. XXXVIIIB), there is no shield or spear in Utrecht's illustration to Psalm II9 (PI. XXXIX), and neither artefact is specifically mentioned in the text. This is clear evidence that the Bury artist did not look to Harley for his composition; rather, the Harley artist looked to an illustration of Psalm 2I in a manuscript related to Odbert and Bury for the shield and spear in his Psalm II9. It is possible to trace the impact of the intrusion of the image from the marginal recension in the way that artist F compiled his composition as a whoIe. Other elements in Harley's composition were taken directly from Utrecht's illustration to Psalm II9. In both manuscripts the Lord is accompanied by angels not required by the text, and in both, these angels hold the same weapons as the Psalmist. But in Utrecht the Psalmist spear ar and a shield from the Lord. Utrecht's receives an arrow from an angel, and not a spe

WILLIAM NOEL

167

illustration is perfectly clear. The angel handing an arrow to the Psalmist illustrates Psalm 119, 3 What shall be given to thee and what shall be added to thee, to a deceitful tongue? The sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals that lay waste

The Psalmist is handed the weapons to help in the chastisement of the iniquitous. Artist F's illustration cannot relate to this verse, since the Psalmist does not carry an arrow, but rather a spear and a shield. The Psalmist in artist F's illustration is being rescued by the Lord from the iniquitous, just as he is in Bury and Odbert, and he now illustrates Psalm II9, 1-2 In my trouble I cried to the Lord, and he heard me. o Lord deliver my soul from wicked lips, and a deceitful tongue

This left artist F with the problem of how to illustrate the arrows of verse 3. He gave these arrows to the figure at the bottom right of his illustration, and added the pile of coals which is not present in the Utrecht illustration. Ir was, then, a member of the marginal recension that provoked the Harley artist to turn the meaning of the Utrecht image on its head: to make the Psalmist not an instrument of retribution, but a soul to be saved from harm; and to make the Lord not a spectator, but an active participant in the Psalmist's battle. The Bury artist relied on a number of earlier marginal images for his creations, and these included his first and last illustrations to the Psalms, and several in between. These images are reflected in Harley and in Odbert. Another question can now be asked of Bury that may shed light on its relationship with Odbert. Did the Bury artist derive the imagery that it has in common with Harley from more than one source, or just one exemplar? If just one exemplar supplied the Harley imagery in Bury, then this that at also incorporated the imagery exemplar was a member of the marginal recension th from Odbert, and Odbert would be a partial reflection of this exemplar. Ir is this question that I will address in the next section. UTRECHT, HARLEY AND BURY

If th there ere did exist a single member of the marginal recension that was responsible for all

the imagery th that at Bury shares with Utrecht and Harley, th then en Odbert would have to be an incomplete reflection of this manuscript. Evidence for such a manuscript would be found in an illustration in Bury that is not only related to Utrecht, but also related to Harley independently of Utrecht, and, moreover, not depicted in Odbert. In Utrecht's illustration to Psalm 7 there is a woman lying on the ground, suckling two of her three offspring (PI. XLA). She illustrates verse IS, Behold, she hath been in labour with injustice, she hath conceived sorrow, and brought forth iniquity

In artist Ns illustration of this verse in Harley, despite this evil woman's many resemblances to the Utrecht image (PI. XLB), she is now sitting upright rather than lying on the ground, she has lost her breasts, and she now holds not three offspring -­ injustice, sorrow and iniquity - but four. The change in detail betrays a radical alteration in conception: the infants are no longer being suckled as the verbs suggest, and there is no justification in the text for the extra infant. Psalm 7, IS is not illustrated in Odbert, but it is on fol. 25 in Bury (PI. XLc). Bury's image is indebted to Utrecht Utrecht,zs ,zs but it is none the less closer to the evil woman in Harley,

r68

THE LOST CANTERBUR CANTERBURY Y PROTOTYPE

for the breasts of the woman have disappeared, her offspring have multiplied to eight, and she sits upright. Gameson noted the fourth child in Harley's illustration, but did not consider it in relation to Bury. Bury.26 26 It would be hard to suppose th that at the extra child was an error on the part of the Harley artist, even if there were no parallel with the Bury image, but that there is such a parallel suggests th that at the extra child in Harley's image was included by design. Artist Ns interest in elaborating upon Utrecht's demonology has been thoroughly demonstrated: it consists in altering small details of the figures to transform their type utterly utterly.27 .27 Even without noting the extra child in Harley's illustration, Heimann considered it a stage in the metamorphosis of the image towards th that at of the Bury manuscript. 2B However, as it is seen in Harley, the image makes no sense. There is no explanation for the metamorphosis: why is the figure now sitting upright, and why does it have four miseries when the text requires only three? The iconography is coherent in the Bury illustration. The woman holds the uas mortis, referring to the uasa mortis of Psalm 7, 14: in medieval exegesis this signified a whole species of evil spirits; the number is unspecified. 29 Although the image is taken from that in Utrecht, a debt is also owed to the Psychomachia of Prudentius. The figure of Avaritia in the Psychomachia also sits upright with her many vicious offspring, enumerated by Prudentius, suckling on her breasts. Bearing in mind that the Bury artist wanted to illustrate verse 14, this iconographic debt was appropriate: the infants held within the cloak of the Bury woman are, as in the Psychomachia, representatives of the whole species, and Bury illustrates more vi vices ces than the iniquity, sorrow and injustice of verse IS. There is no need to think th that at the Bury artist gave up the reference to verse IS. Indeed the evil woman is placed next to that verse, rather than verse 14, which is at the bottom of the previous recto. Rather, iniquity, sorrow, and injustice are to be understood as th three ree of a large group of miseries. Because the Bury artist labelled his woman to refer to verse 14, it made sense for him to employ the iconography in the Prudentius manuscript. The Harley artist could only include the extra child because he considered the woman to refer to verse 14 as weIl as verse IS. The Harley artist considered the woman to illustrate the vasa mortis, but only in the light of the Bury illustration is this meaning clear. Far from being a development towards the Bury illustration, the Harley image has been extrapolated from one similar to that in Bury, which provided its justification. Moreover, the best way to explain the upright stance of the demonic woman in Harley, as opposed to the reclining one in Utrecht, is not by supposing that artist A had direct access to the Psychomachia, of which there is very little sign, but rather by supposing that it has retained the orientation of an image th that at was fitted into avertical margin of a psalter. As I have noted, the illustration to Psalm 103, 14-15 of the Bury manuscript is related to the illustration to the same verse in Utrecht. The vers verses es read: That thou mayst bring bread out of the earth and th that at wine may cheer the art of man. That he may make the face cheerful with oil and th that at bread heart he may strengthen man's heart

There are important changes between the illustrations. Unlike the figures in Utrecht, those in Bury hold the cutlery with which they are to eat their repast. Also, while in Utrecht, a standing figure pours on to the head of one of the figures, in Bury, this figure holds his own hom, and he holds it so that it more or less covers his face. It seems that this character is now drinking from this hom, and therefore the hom may refer to the wine that cheers the heart, as much as to the oil that brightens the face, of the man referred to in the Psalm. In Utrecht, the figure on the left is not in the process of drinking

WILLIAM NOEL

169

from his hom - it is just being offered to him. The image in the Bury manuscript is more literal than the image in Utrecht from which it derived. The illustration to this verse in Harley is almost identical to that in Utrecht, except that artist G of Harley added another figure to the tabIe, only just vi visi sibIe bIe in the illustration, because he is painted in red. In adding this fi figure, gure, artist G demonstrates a parallel development to that seen in the Bury manuscript. 30 This figure is located in a similar place at the table as the figure on the left in the Bury manuscript, and has approximately the same pose, looking upward, at the hom of oil. Moreover, like the Bury artist, Artist G felt the need to elaborate on the reference to verse IS: the artist concentrated on the face of the man, and, painted in red, this face does indeed seem ecstatic, cheered by the oil. Artist G has added literalism to the image in the manuscript, trying to raise it to a par with the image in the Bury manuscript. Harley and Bury are both related to Odbert, but none the less the images discussed above indicate that they are also both related to another marginal Psalter. This marginal Psalter, like Odbert, derived its imagery in part from Utrecht. This is firm evidence that, as Harris hypothesized, Odbert is but a partial reflection of an Anglo­ Saxon marginal psalter that existed before Bury was made. CONCLUSION

One important lesson to be drawn from Harley is that, even when apparently copying from one illustrated manuscript, imagery from other manuscripts could be incorpor­ ated. Another is that Anglo-Saxon artists we were re opportunists, quite cap capab abIe Ie of spontaneous invention. Moreover, one of the advantages of having images in the margins of a text is th that at they can be newly included, or omitted, without disturbing the layout of the text. Marginal imagery is, potentially, a very fluid genre of illustration. This is how Gameson saw Bury: he hypothesizes first that the artist greatly adapted his pictorial sources, and secondly th that at he pillaged from many exemplars to produce a highly original cycle. 31 Indeed he considered that the extent to which the Bury artist adapted his sources in itself indicated that he looked to many different exemplars. But these hypotheses should not be related to each other, and even if the truth of one could be demonstrated, this would not be proof of the other: the images that Bury has in common with Odbert are very different from those in Odbert, but the Bury artist took them all from one source. The degree of pictorial debt and innovation by the Rury artist is always going to be difficult to estimate, and without knowing the manuscripts that the Bury artist used we are always going to be at aloss. Of all manuscripts, Harley, usually understood as a copy of Utrecht, is useful in putting limits on the extent to which the Bury artist himself was re respons sponsiibIe for devising the programme of marginal illustration seen in the manuscript, and for the pictorial adaptations found within individual images. This is not because the apparently inventive imagery in Bury has to be derivative, but because the apparently derivative imagery in Harley is in fact inventive. The best way to explain many of Harley's deviations from the Utrecht programme is to suppose that its artists had access to a member of the marginal recension. The manuscript to which the Harley artists were indebted already had the imagery that Bury now shares with Utrecht, Harley itself, and Odbert. It was a marginal Psalter much more like Bury than Odbert, in which images flew between separate pages of text, and which included Bury's first illustration to its Psalm text, and its last. Either Bury and Harley had independent access to the extended model for Odbert itself, or they had access to a later development of it. I would suggest

17°

THE LOST CANTERBUR CANTERBURY Y PROTOTYPE

the latter alternative. In the imagery that they have in common, Odbert resembles Utrecht much more elosely than Bury.32 Harley's illustration of Psalm II9 is more like that of Psalm 21 in Bury than it is like that of Psalm 21 in Odben, and Harley ineludes an illustration to Psalm 7, 14-15, that Odbert did not inelude, even though it has images before and af after ter it. Since Harley's Christ Church origin is secure, and since it was worked on from the early Irth to the mid I2th century, the manuscript on which the Bury and the Harley images depend was at Christ Church throughout this period. I have only been able to demonstrate that the underlying structure of the Bury cyele had been created at Christ Church before 1°32. Many of the images in Bury, which do indeed co come me from a great variety of sources, are still unaccounted for. But, if the Bury manuscript elosely followed a member of the marginal recension that was made at Canterbury before c. 1020, perhaps in a similar way to th that at in which artists A-D of Harley followed Utrecht, this would help to explain the retrospective character of the style of the illustrations in Bury.33 There is good evidence of contacts between Christ Church and Bury St Edmunds, and between Christ Church and Odbert's home, St-Benin. A member of the marginal recension that looked remarkably like Bury must have been taken from Christ Church to Bury St Edmunds in the 1rth century. Archbishop Aethelnoth's consecration of the Bury Church in 1°32 would have provided an early opportunity to transport it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I should like to th thank ank George Henderson and Sandy Heslop for their help in the preparation of this paper.

REFERENCES 1. For a technica technicaII description of the manuscript see A. Wil mart, Codices Reginensis Latini, I (Vatican 1937), I937), 30-35. Full page plates are to be found in T. H. Ohlgren, Anglo-Saxon Textual Textual Illustration (Kalamazoo 199 ),249-97· I99 2),249-97. 2. The Calendar is printed in full in English Kalendars Before AD noo, ed. F. WormaId, Henry Bradshaw Society, LXXII (I934), (1934), 239-51. It records the day of the dedication of the Church of St Edmund in the original hand, and a note added to the Easter tables of the manuscript makes it clear that this took place in 1032; I032; see The New Palaeographical Society Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts, Manuscripts, wd ser., ed. E. M. Thompson et al. (London 19°3-3°), I903-30), PIs 166-68 I66-68 and text. Since the translations of SS Jurmin and Botulf are also in the calendar in the same hand, and local tradition, preserved in Oxford, Bod!. Lib. MS Bodley 297, attests th that at their remains were translated in the abbacy of Leofstan (I044-65), it may weil have been made af after ter I044. New Pal. Soc., wd ser., ed. Thompson et al., PIs 166-68, I66-68, discovers ambiguity in the entry in Bodley 297, but see A. Wil mart, 'The Prayers of the Bury Psalter', Downside Review, XLVIII (1930),198-99. (I930), I98-99. The text is printed in Memoriais, I, 352. 3. The evidence of the calendar and litany is most fully recounted in Wilmart, 'Prayers of the Bury Psalter', passim. Thomson, 'The Library', 623 n.25, considered the script in Bury to be similar to that of a bifolium from the binding of Cambridge, Pembroke College MS 20, now in MS 3I3, 313, a missa missaII which he dates to c. I050-75, and which was written at Bury St Edmunds. 4. R. M. Harris, 'The Marginal Drawings of the Bury St Edmunds Psalter (Rome, Vatican Library MS Reg. lat. 12)', unpublished D.Phi!. thesis, Princeton University, 1960, I960, and A. Heimann, 'Th 'Three ree Illustrations from the Bury St Edmunds Psalter and their Prototypes. Notes on the Iconography of Some Anglo-Saxon Drawings', Journalof the Warburg and Courtauld lnstitutes, XXIX (I966), (1966), 39-59. 5. The manuscript was in part illustrated by Abbot Odbert of St-Bertin, and is databIe to AD 999 (see V. Leroquais, Les psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques publiques de France, 3 vols (Macon

WILLlAM NOEL

17 1

194°-41), 1,94-101. However the marginal drawings were not planned at the start of the campaign, but added later, and it is not possible ra date them precisdy. But Harris ('Marginal Drawings', lI8), notes that the Odbert scriptorium ceased to flourish af after ter his death in c. 1007, and it seems unlikely therefore that th at they were executed long af after ter the text, especially in view of the stylistic considerations mentioned below. 6. Harris, 'Marginal Drawings', IIO-19.

7· ibid., II5-I9.

8. ibid., 134-37. 9· R. Gameson, 'English Manuscript Art in the Mid-Eleventh Century: The Decorative Tradition' , Antiq. J.,

LXXI (1990), 87. 10. Utrecht Psalter, facsimile ed., with volume of commentary with bibliography, K. Van der Horst and J. H. A. Engdbregt, Codices Selecti Phototypice Impressi, LXXV (Graz 1982-84). 11. Harris, 'Marginal Drawings', 124-25. 12. ibid., 124-sr, and Heimann, 'Three Illustrations', 39-46. 13· Harris, 'Marginal Drawings', 159-60, Heimann, 'Three Illustrations', 56-57. 14· See W. G. Nod, The Harley Psalter, Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology, IV (1995),

passim.

15· See R. Gameson, 'The Anglo-Saxon Artists of the Harley (603), Psalter', JBAA (199°),43-44, and for a

more recent discussion, Noel, Harley Psalter,

16.

17·

18. 19· 20. 21. 22. 23· 24· 25· 26. 27· 28. 29· 30 . 31. 32 .

33·

100-12.

J. E. Duffey, 'The Inventive Group of Illustrations in the Harley Psalter (British Museum MS Harley 603)',

unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, I977, 2IO. Harris, 'Marginal Drawing', 425-27, and Duffey, 'Inventive Group', 1I0-12. Harris, 'Marginal Drawings', 553-57.

ibid., 555-56; see also Duffey, 'Inventive Group', 1I6.

See B. C. Raw, Anglo-Saxon crucifixion iconography and the art of the Monastic Revival (Cambridge 199°),77, and Duffey, 'Inventive Group', 1I5-17. Harris, 'Marginal Drawings', 302-3.

Heimann, 'Three Illustrations', 46-56.

ibid., 55-56.

Harris, 'Marginal Drawings', 138-42.

See above, 162-63.

Gameson, 'Anglo-Saxon Artists', p. 47 n. 78.

See D. Tselos, 'English Manuscript Illumination and the Utrecht Psalter', The Art Bulletin, XLI (1959), 139·

Heimann, 'Th 'Three ree Illustrations', 57-58. Harris, 'Marginal Drawings', 158-66, esp. 163-64. For the attribution of this addition ra artist G, see Nod, Harley Psalter, 101. Gameson, 'Decorative Tradition' ,87. Harris points out that Odbert is more faithful to the archetype than Bury. See Harris, 'Marginal Drawings', 128. He writes of the 'incredibly dependent nature of the hand' of the marginal illustrations of Boulogne, Bib!. Mun. MS 20. The fact that the Litany and the calendar of this MS suggest a date of post 1°32 has caused art historians many problems, principally because paralleIs are usually drawn with BL Arundel MS 155, made c. IOI2-23. See in particular the observarions of Wilmart, 'Prayers of the Bury Psalter', 198-99. But note also Gameson's interesting parallel of some of the illustrations in Bury with Oxford, Bod!. Lib. MS Douce 296 ('Anglo-Saxon Artists', 40 and n. 100). The generally retrospective character of the work is noted by Harris, 'Marginal Drawings', 563.

The Production and Artistry of the Bury Bible By T. A. Heslop

This paper looks briefly at some hitherto neglected difficulties affecting our understand­ ing of the Bury Bible (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 2). It begins by examining the evidence for the planning and the production of the book, particularly some anomalies in the first quire, the use of double thickness vellum for much of the in the manuscript. Together these illumination, and the range of capitallettering styles in suggest a number of uncertainties, contingencies and possibly even disruptions in the part considers the choice of subject matter and an aspect of commission. The second part the construction of the pictorial compositions. The aim here is to suggest that the artist seems to have imposed his own ethos on the representation of the narratives both as regards their emotional content (or lack of it) and the invention of the iconography. The opportunity is also taken to introduce a recently discovered fragment of the missing second volume of the Bible, which was recently sold by a London book dealer. The conclusion places the Bible within the context of manuscript commissions at Bury in an attempt account for the quality, quantity and character of the illumination. INTRODUCTION

Within the context of 12th-century manuscript studies, the Bury Bible is both weIl known and weIl documented. The names of its patron, Prior Talbot, and illuminator, Master Hugo, are recorded. The date of its inception can be placed with some confidence in the mid II30S. An accumulation of evidence indicates that it was produced at Bury St Edmunds and remained there for most of the Middle Ages, probably until the Dissolution. Given such relative certainty and agreement, there is no need to rehearse wh what at earlier scholars may fairly be said to have established. 1 What the present contribution offers instead are observations which, perhaps unfortunately, raise more questions than they answer. However, I trust that readers will take the view that if they open up the debate, to take it beyond the factual nuts and bolts, they will have served some broader intellectual purpose. As several of them concern the production of the manuscript they will be dealt with together. Two others look at aspects of the illuminator's contribution and constitute a second section. THE PRODUCTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The creation of a Romanesque giant bible was a complex procedure involving a large number of decisions. The overarching question, the function that such a book was intended to fulfil, doubtless helped resolve a number of secondary issues, but since we are not explicitly told why the Bury Bible was wanted we are forced to infer the answer from the patterns of behaviour evident in the commis commission sion itself. In this case, for example, the fact that it was to have so much illumination implies that it was intended to be an object of display and status, though quite how this characteristic was publicized and to whom is problematic. At the outset the choice of a bible text to copy, of a scribe to copy it, of the format to be adopted, and the means for integrating decoration and illustration, must have been taken by someone - probably by the patron, Prior Talbot, perhaps in consultation

T. A. HESLOP

173

with others in the communit community.2 y.2 As no two surviving English giant bibles of the period simil milar, ar, in text and structure, the who whoIe Ie issue of are identical, they are rarely even si finding a text to copy is far less straightforward than might be imagined. Ir is likely th that at a common strategy was to use an exemplar which corresponded reasonably well with what was wanted but to modify it as it was written. The text of the Bible at this period is remarkably unstable at almost all levels. The order of the books of the Bible varies, the inclusion or omission of prologues is also open to debate, and the actual words of the text itself were subject to considerable editorial freedom. 3 One might cite as an analogy the building of a great church, such as the abbey of St Edmund itself. In the patron's mind there were doubtless models, in the form of other buildings, from which ideas were drawn, but the result was a unique creation. And, in much the same way, with both church and manuscript, the process of production could not be left to whim or to chance. In the case of the BibIe, a good deal of pre-planning had to take place to estimate the size of the task in terms of sheets of vellum, numbers of gatherings, placement of illumination, to allow a budget to be planned and to try to ensure that production was reasonably well co-ordinated between the various skilled contributors to the project. For example, if the scribe was to write the text and leave space for initials and pictures, he had to know how much space to leave. The length of time taken to illuminate the substantial pictures introducing so many of the books in the Bury Bible would have made it impractical for the scribe simply to wait for the illuminator to finish work on a frontispiece each time before proceeding with writing the text. Equally, if a painter was after ter it had been written some strategy was necessary to ensure th that at to paint on a sheet af the moisture in the medium which bound his pigments did not leach through to the that at the script on the other side of the page, causing it to 'bleed' . In the unlikely event th painter worked first, someone would have needed to calculate how much space he had to leave between illuminations for the scribe to write the required text. The Bury Bible is an interesting case study because, as is well known, many of the illuminations, including all the large ones, are painted not on to the vellum sheets which carry the writing but on to double thicknesses of membrane, an extra layer of skin being pasted on to the page. For this to have happened af after ter the text was written would have threatened precisely the problem of the ink running referred to above, but in this case caused by the moisture in the glue. But for the pasted sheets to have been added before the text was written would require some degree of pre-planning; how big were the pictures and initials to be and where were they to be placed? Ir has usually been inferred that the pasting on of extra membrane was because the illuminator found the quality of the vellum locally available to be inappropriate for his purposes. We are told that Hugo procured skins from Scotland, and as he was presumably primarily concerned with the painting the obvious conclusion to draw is that it was control of the illumination that was at stake. However, it is impossible in practice to distinguish with the naked eye any differences between the quality of vellum used for text and that used to carry illumination. And indeed in many places Hugo painted directly on to a single-thickness page without any noticeable decline in the quality of painted surface he was able to achieve. 5 Ir may well be, then, that in the case of the Bury Bible both pre-planning and pasting were strategies designed to enable the illuminator to work through much of the book at his own speed without disrupting or interrupting the work of the scribe. There are various other indications in the structure of the su survi rviving ving volume of the Bible which might support such an interpretation, and two of these will now be explored.

174

THE AR ARTISTRY TISTRY OF THE BUR BURY Y BIBLE

The first gathering of the Bible as it survives has been interpreted as fragmentary. According to M. R. James it originally contained ten leaves, that is, five large sheets folded in half, but has been reduced to eight leaves. 6 In one way the idea is anomalous, since other gatherings in the Bible have, and always had, eight leaves. However, James was doubtless attempting to account for the curious omission of the opening word of the text of Genesis. The current folio 7 recto carries in grand display capita capitaIs Is 'PRINCIPIO ERAT .. .' (PI. XLI) but the introductory 'IN' is absent. Clearly this should have been on the verso of the preceding sheet but it is not there. The preceding sheet contains the chapter headings for Genesis, and there is only a small space at the bottom right-hand corner in which IN could have been written. Perhaps, then, as J ames seems to have thought, it was on another page, now missing. Probably to~, the argument has run, there would have been a large pictorial narrative frontispiece to Genesis. The lavishness of the manuscript seems to demand it, and the fact that the other books of the Pentateuch have them reinforces the likelihood. Looking at the manuscript today, however, there is no sign that a leaf has been excised. There is, for example, no stub from the conjoint leaf. J ames apparently inferred that the conjoint had also been removed, hence his view that the gathering originally had ten leaves. Thus a who whoIe Ie sheet of vellum was missing which would have carried text on one folio (between present fols 4 and s) and illumination on the other (between present fols 6 and 7). The difficulty with such an interpretation is, though, that there is no text missing. Jerome's letter Frater Ambrosius is uninterrupted by lacunae, and this is true from the base of fol. 2 to the top of fol. 3\ from fol. 3v to fol. 4r and from fol. 4v to fol. Sr Sr.7 .7 It is certainly pos possi sibIe bIe that it was always intended to place a single Ie Ieaf af in the first gathering (to give a total of nine leaves) with a frontispiece on one si side de and a large initial 'IN' on the other. But again, it would have been a unique in instance stance in the Bible as that at again would argue a degree of experimentation at the beginning of we have it, and th the book. Since there is no actual evidence for this, my reconstruction of the physical make-up of the surviving volume (TabIe I) omits all reference to it. This may seem unduly pernickety given that the opening word is missing and it must have been intended to appear somewhere, but there is evidence elsewhere in the Bury BibIe, and indeed in other splendid English Romanesque bibles, that there was difficulty co-ordinating the writing of display capitals within the overall schedule of production. In the case of this manuscript it is evident that at least three hands, all outstandingly accomplished, provided the display capitals in a book that was otherwise written by a single scribe and illuminated by one painter. What follows is a preliminary analysis of the work of lettering to see if any pattern emerges. The bulk of the display capitals are executed by a skilled writer working, at least for the most part, with pigments visually indistinguishable from Master Hugo's. On many pages the letters appear entirely or in part on the double thickness of vellum provided for illumination. 8 The size and shape of the added membrane of often ten took account of the envisaged extent of the lettering. Given the co-ordination of materials and layout, it would be tempting to attribute the capitals to Hugo himself, were it not for evidence that his lettering style was actually significantly different. The elaborate opening words Frater Ambrosius on fol. IV have a large and splendid initial by Hugo with the rest of the name being equally brilliantly painted alongside (PI. XLII). The subtlety of the colour balance on the page as a whole is very carefully calculated, and the effect is achieved by modulations of hue which are not apparent elsewhere else in the lettering of the manuscript (where pure red, green, yell yellow ow and blue V

T. A. HESLOP

175

TABLE I The IIlumination of the Bury Bible

Fol.

lnitials

IV

v 5 7 32v 33 54 v 54

54 0 7 70v 94 v 94 lI3v 115 v II5 12 9 129v v 143 v 145 v I47 14 8 167v 18 3 20r

v

219v 220 220

v

v 245 24 6 275 277 278 v 281 281 v 281 v 30 7 v 30 7 18 3 322 323 32 4 327 v 32 7 28v 3 33 1 33 2 333 334 v 334 v 335 33 6v v 337 2 34 343

344

v 344

Onadded Narratives vel/urn

F full page Epistle + D pref. Genesis + PRINCIPIO ERAT ... display capitals to Genesis on added vellum (+) j page Exodus H Exodus + (+) Leviticus ~page V Leviticus full page Numbers + L Numbers full page Deuteronomy + Deuteronomy H pref. J oshua T (+) full page Joshua E Joshua (+) full page Judges P Judges Ruth I pref. Samuel/Kings E full page Samuel + I Samuel F + II Samuel F + I Kings E + II Kings C Isaiah (+) pref. Isaiah N Isaiah V + Jeremiah ~ page + Jeremiah V + Baruch H + epI. Jeremiah P Lamentations E + pref. Ezekiel E Ezekiel ~page + Ezekiel E + pref. Daniel D Daniel A + Hosea V + (+) Joel pref. Amos A Amos V Obadiah (+) Jonah E Micah V Nahum 0 pref. Habakkuk Q Habakkuk 0 + pref. Zephaniah T Zephaniah V + Haggai M&I pref. Zechariah S Zechariah I Malachi 0 pref. Job C j page Job + V Job +

extant extant extant missing extant

missing

extant

extant

extant

extant

extant extant missing extant mlssmg extant extant extant extant extant extant extant extant mlssmg extant extant extant extant extant extant extant extant extant extant extant extant extant missing extant extant mlssmg extant

extant

extant

extant

extant extant extant extant extant extant

extant

extant

extant extant extant

17 6

THE AR ARTISTRY TISTRY OF THE BUR BURY Y BIBLE

pigments predominate). The forms, the style if you like, of the fol. IV capitals are unlike those of either of the other letterers. It is thus preferabie to distinguish between the attribution of Frater Ambrosius and the rest of the coloured capitais, and it is the former which has the better claim to be Hugo's work. So who was responsible for the main display capitais? As has been pointed out before, they employ design ideas which have very close links with lettering in other Bury manuscripts of the period. 9 Two characteristics that may be mentioned are the 'cream hom' and a local variant of 'clove curl' used in the context of arabesque initiais, and serifs in the form of an angled line < or > (PI. XLIIIB) , which seem first to emerge in the display capitals of the Pierpont Morgan Life of St Edmund. 10 It is thus plausible to see in the Bible a notabie illuminator collaborating with someone who whose se lettering style was formed in the Bury milieu. Furthermore, we can be reasonably sure that this lettering was not the work of the main text scribe because, in places where there is rubrication in minuscule script alongside display capitais, the coloured lower-case letter forms are quite distinct from those of the text scribe (PI. XLIIIB). A significant contribution to the lettering of the book was made by a third hand of rather different character. It can be seen most of often ten in explicits or tables of chapter headings, that is at a distance from Hugo's illuminated initiais. However, in a few cases it is immediate!y adjacent to them and in two cases to large frontispieces, to Jeremiah and Ezekie! (PI. XLIIIA XLIIIA))Y In general this style has taller proportions, lacks the indented serifs and is fonder of ligatures or conjoint letters. Single-point punctuation tends to be at be!ow quarter-Ietter quarter-letter height, whereas the main letterer prefers them at half-letter height. The re!ationship of these two display hands is curious. There does seem to be some cross fertilization of ideas, for example in the se!ective use of angular forms of C and S, the decorative deployment of litteri inscripti and the use of vertical three-point punctuation at the ends of lines. However, unlike in the main display hand, distinctive Bury characteristics are hard to find in this associate's work. We may wonder why it was necessary to have two letterers at work, given that the task of completing all the lettering could not have been beyond one man. One possible explanation is th that, at, for some reason, the main hand left the task unfinished. This would often ten the lette lettering ring of explicits and chapter headings, certainly fit with the fact that it is of that is those in secondary positions, which were supplied by the auxiliary letterer. However, it would not account for some of his other interventions, such as the Ezekie! incipit. Furthermore, some of the characteristics of his style appear to be of Norman derivation and are adopted by the main display hand as though under the influence of the associate hand. 12 They are certainly more explicable in something like these terms than by reference to earlier lettering at Bury itse!f. Until a good deal more work has been done on display scripts in general in this period it will not be safe to do more than indicate possible solutions for individu individual al cases such as the Bury Bibie. Wh What at should, I hope, be clear by now is that th there ere is a rather more complex story to be told about the sequence of production and the personne! involved than earlier literature has acknowledged. My fin al comment in the context of the production of the manuscript concerns the missing volume. What is always referred to as the Bury Bibie, Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS 2, is only one of a two-volume set. However, the chance reappearance of a small fragment of the missing volume allows us to say a little bit about its form and its like!y fate. The fragment be!onged to a collection put together in Oxford in the mid 19th century by Philip Bliss and subsequently became part of Phillipps MS 18133. Most

T. A. HESLOP

177

of the items seem to have been retrieved from bindings, and it may be inferred that the manuscripts to which they originally belonged had been used for scrap by bookbinders, presumably in the late I6th or I7th centuries. Certainly, the fold line near the top of the Bury Bible fragment and the needie hole through it suggest that it has been used for strengthening the spine of a book. While this makes the rediscovery of a substantial part of the volume highly unlikely, it leaves some chance that other small fragments may be found when old bindings are repaired or replaced, and this may help to pin down the time and place of the volume's destruction. I came across the surviving piece in the sale catalogue of Bliss's collection published by Quaritch the booksellers in 1984, where it was listed, quite correctly, as from an English, I2th-centurl giant bibie. I reproduce their photograph here with grateful thanks (PI. XLIVB XLIVB)).l The text is from Luke's Gospel, with parts of chapter 12 on the recto, chapter 13 on the verso. The format and script are precisely those of volume one, which is to say that the layout and ruling match perfectly for size, and the same scribe is at work. If nothing else, this discovery demonstrates that whatever minor difficulties may have been encountered in the production and co-ordination of volume one did not lead to major changes in design, or of the scribe, for volume two. In conclusion, it is worth stressing that the reason I was able to identify this fragment was precisely because its script is distinctive. It is a precocious example of a style of writing that was to be developed in bibles and liturgica from about II40. Although about a hundred I2th-century manuscripts survive from the library at Bury, the Bible is the only one in which this scribe's work appears. Ir seems that the most prestigious scripts and scribes were reserved for a limited number of high status books. 14 Perhaps surprisingly, great bibles had not always been seen in this category. The Carilef Bible at Durham, for example, is in the hand of a well-known Norman scribe who wrote several library books in an identical script, and early 12th-century bibles for English houses, such as the Rochester Bibie, are written in styles that appear in less exalted contexts. 15 Thus the distinctive script of the Bury Bible is just one further indication that this book was perceived by its producers as a set-piece of formal perfection. THE ARTISTRY OF MASTER HUGO

No one who sees the Bury Bible can be in any doubt about the quality of its illumination. Perhaps the most startling thing ab about out it is the brilliance of its colour. Hugo's pigment is at once intense in hue (very blue blues, red reds, etc.) and very refined. Unlike most earlier Romanesque paint there is no hint either of the granularity of crushed minerals nor the transparency of washes which allows something of the whiteness of the page to show through. 16 The illumination of the Bury Bible shows an evenness of surface and opacity which is hard to parallel in earlier Romanesque art. In both its intensity and refinement Hugo's colour is also precocious; this was the direction in which the highest quality illumination was to move in the second half of the 12th century. In making this point there is clearly a danger of teleological arguing, but it may be that the sheer technical brilliance of Hugo's colours was itself influential on artists and patrons in the succeeding generation, so th that at he was not only a harbinger but to some degree a cause of the increased expectations about the quality of materials to be used for illumination in high status books, though again this raises questions about the accessibility of his work. By implication then, as I have stated elsewhere about Hugo's art, even more than for other illuminators of the period, in his hands the medium was a large part of the message.

17 8

THE AR ARTISTRY TISTRY OF THE BUR BURY Y BIBLE

To justify that claim further, it is useful to look also at his subject matter since art history of often ten sees an excessive concern with technique as being at the expense of content. Among the illustrations in the Bible there are several subjects of actual or potential profundity: Jeremiah Witnessing the Fall of Jerusalem or the Tribulations of J ob (PI. XLIV A). The latter is a good instance of Hugo's narrative blandness. The majority of the picture is given over to showing J ob's seven sons and th three ree daughters as devout people in smart clothes. By contrast Job's suffering is on a small scale, and nothing about his facial expres expression sion or his skin suggests that he is in any discomfort. No scraping of sores with a potsherd here, indeed the dung heap is shown in al almost most the full range of Hugo's best colours. There are hints of trouble, the hand on cheek gesture in response to his wife's admonition and the fact that her hair is uncovered and loose to show mourning, but the formal perfection of poses, expressions and paint surfaces, even the neatness of the exposed hair, undermine the emotional potential. By contrast, although it is not a work of the greatest skill, the illustration in the Moralia in Job from Rochester is an altogether more engaging interpretation of the psychology inherent in the story (PI. XLIIIc). Job's wife cannot be bear ar to look at him or touch him, but turns her stickY kY shoulder to him while passing him bread in the cleft of a forked stic I do not think that it can be claimed that Hugo has sacrificed sympathetic engagement to theological or scholarly concerns. The Book of Job was a rich vein of such material, as witness the slightly later frontispiece in the Floreffe Bible where his seven sons equate with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit and the daughters to virtues. 18 These are further explored in the acts of mercy depicted at the bottom of the page which themselves relate to Job's ordeals. But Hugo, or his patrons, were apparently not interested in such things. It is almost as though by eschewing ideas of empathy on the one hand or theology on the other they were maxi maximi mizing zing the attention that could be given to Hugo's technical virtuosity. Much the same points can be made about the other pictures in the Bibie. One of the effects of the comparison between Hugo's Fall of Jerusalem and that in the Munich Gospel Book of Otto III is that in the English Bible all reference to suffering has been suppressed. 19 Whereas the Ottonian artist showed a savage conflict and its con­ sequences, the bodies of the dead and the torment of a mother killing her own child to prevent it being taken prisoner, Hugo is content to limit his action to a few soldiers in athletic poses - the sanitized view of warfare. In general throughout his work the urbanity is palpable. No hair is dishevelled, no garment rent. It is an unruffled world where even the dragons are playful. In the Frater Ambrosius initial (PI. XLII) Hugo gives free reign to his joie de vivre: the monkeys, the centaur with lance and shield, the lovely mermaid, and the man with a wooden leg pursuing a hare with a pair of shears, presumably in quest of its 'wool,. 'wool,.20 20 There is an inconsequential elegance here which pi piaces aces the artist in a courtly rather more than in the religious domain. We might suppose that these priorities were not those of Hugo himself but of his patrons; he was merely carrying out orders. This possibility needs examining in a little more detail since it impinges on such issues as the autonomy, status and individuality of artists in the period. Even though he was obviously regarded as an asset at Bury to be lauded in writing, it might seem anachronistic to be supposing he was allo allowed wed such latitude. However, the evidence tends to point th that at way. Neither the Pierpont Morgan Life of St Edmund, of the mid I120S, nor the Pembroke College Cambridge New Testament, of the I140S or early 50S, shows any of this suavity.21 In so far as we may deduce things about the culture of the abbey from its illuminated manuscripts, the two

T. A. HESLOP

179

books just mentioned seem to be at odds with the Bibie, showing as they do scenes where suffering and poverty are easy to identify - for example, the crippled and indigent being given alms by the patron saint. IE Hugo's patron chose the Fall of J erusalem or J ob's Tribulations hoping for them to be treated affectingly he might have been disappointed, always supposing he was not mesmerized by the beauty of the painting. The question 'who chose the subject matter' is of consequence for other reasons than the psychology of the representations it might have seemed to privilege. The source of this decision making might effect our reading of any recurrent themes in a notional 'programme', for example the theme of authority, as vested in Moses and, to alesser extent, Aaron. If the subject matter was determined by the patron or a 'learned adviser', it could also impinge on our predisposition to find iconographic sources for the miniatures. For example, the knowledge that before coming to Bury Abbot Anselm was in the formerly Greek monastery of St Saba in Rome can be seen to lend credence to ideas about 'Byzantine influence'. My own view is that, with only half the extant large pictures surviving, and only one of the two volumes, it would be difficult to identify anything like a coherent programme, even if one were predisposed to believe that they existed in Romanesque art (which is a matter of debate). And in the absence of any compellingly similar compositions which might have determined the form of the Bible's iconographies, it is almost equally difficult to identify an earl ier cycle of images which might have contributed significantly to the choice of subjects and the details of their representations. Where similarities exist, they are bits and pieces, here and there. In the circumstances I believe the best procedure is to analyse the compositional techniques found in the pictures themselves. Such analysis suggests that if there were visual prototypes, as against a list of subjects to be represented, they were disguised by a fairly hefty component of redesign by the artist. One aspect of the evidence is his use of recurrent poses. A clear example of this practice is the seated figure with upraised arm who appears, in mirror image, in both the Numbers and Deuteronomy pictures (fig. Ia and b) b).. These two pages also share the same arrangement of legs for, respectively, the man leaning on his axe and the man with a crutch, with rear knee, lower leg and foot being in the same relationship to the front leg in both cases (fig. Ic and d). It looks then as though in detailing his pictures Hugo used a set of stock poses which he varied by turning them round, reusing only the upper or lower parts or by changing the attributes. This phenomenon suggests the possibility that a model book of some kind was being used. 22 Another instance of a stock pose is the man with his hand on his cheek in the pers person on of Job, a gesture which Hugo was prepared to reuse in the Deuteronomy frontispiece. The narrative implications are not clear; are we to believe this man is perturbed by what wh at Moses is saying, and if so why? A similar question is raised by the gesture of the man behind him, who holds his nose. This action is usually associated with a bad smell, typically when Lazarus is raised from the dead af after ter three days in the tomb. Are we meant to read this gesture as a comment on Moses expounding the Law, or is it included because it is an unusual pose which adds variety and interest to the picture? Before trying to answer these questions, it is necessary to begin with an observation. The majority of these poses are similar to those in a German Gospel Book, th that at of Otto III in Munich.23 The man with the crutch may derive from afigure such as that in the Annunciation to the Shepherds or the Devil in the Second Temptation of Christ, and the seated figure with raised hand from something like the blind man being healed

180

THE AR ARTISTRY TISTRY OF THE BUR BURY Y BIBLE

a. and d . are from Bury ibid.. Bible fol. 7or; b. c. f. from ibid fol. 94r; e. is from Munich, Staatsbibl. Cim 4453 fol. 23IV.

FIG.!.

by Christ or St Peter in the Washing of the Apostles' Feet. The man in the Deuteronomy frontispiece of the Bury Bible who holds his nose does so in exactly the same way as a figure in the Raising of Lazarus in the Otto Gospels (fig. Ie and f). So far as I have been able to discover, the Munich Gospels provides the closest match for Hugo's more unusual poses and gestures. Certainly there is nothing like them in earlier English painting, and in the generation in which Hugo himself was working, from II30-60, the majority of artists were content with crowd scenes showing rows of similarly posed standing figures. 24 It might follow, then, that iconographic models for Hugo's compositions are hard to co come me by because at least some of his images are novel compilations rather than copies or variants of earl earlier ier versions of the same subject matter.

T. A. HESLOP

r8r

Such a practice would not be out of line with the working methods of other artists of the period who also operated 'mix-and-match' compositional methods. Wh What at is unusual about Hugo is the extent to which he seems prepared to borrow poses expressive of particular physical or psychological conditions from their 'normal' narrative context and insert them into scenes where their import is much harder to construe. We must either see him as seeking to give a novel interpretative nuance to his scenes or as being desirous of introducing varied and relatively complex poses for their own sake - that is, for art's sake. CONCLUSIONS

The Bury Bible had more illumination than any other English Romanesque bibie; when the surviving volume was complete it would have had about twice the painted page area of its nearest rival, the Lambeth Bibie. It was, then, a sumptuous project and, given its place in the chronology of substantially illuminated bibles from this country, a precocious one. Although books with substantial paintings were not rare at the period, the ways in which they were produced in England over the preceding half century had avoided the problems which confronted the makers of the Bury Bibie. For those books with full-page paintings, such as the so-called St Albans Psalter or the Life of St Edmund, now in New York, avoided the difficulties of co-ordinating writing and painting by hiving off the major pictorial element in what amounted to a separate booklet prefacing the bulk of the manuscript. Other cycles, such as the Life of St Cuthbert, or Prudentius' Psychomachia, were in outline drawing, not full painting, and it was an easy enough matter for the scribe to leave a rectangular space for the artist to fill in, either basing th this is on an agreed picture size for all the imagery (St Cuthbert) or on the model of the exemplar which also had pictures (as probably with Prudentius).25 But when it came to a fully painted book with no direct prototype the planning needed and the scope for error or for delay in production while the artist caught up with the scribe (or, Ie Iess ss likely, vice versa) was very rea!. That the makers of the Bury Bible got through with so few difficulties is a tribute to their professionalism and intelligence, though there are a few signs, in the construction of the first gathering and in the display capitais, th that at the process was not entirely straightforward for them. The double thickness of vellum may well have helped to iron out some of the possible irregularities in production, even if there turns out still to be some truth in the usual inference that the skins of Scots vellum for painting were of different and more appropriate quality than those which were only destined for text. The technical aspects of the book's production would doubtless repay detailed investigation. The Bible is also striking for its context as a major commission within the abbey of St Edmund. We have th three ree manuscripts with substantial pictorial narrative cycles probably made there in the course of a quarter of a century. Each is by a different artist. The differences between the Bible and the other two, the Life of St Edmund and the New Testament now in Pembroke College Cambridge, have already been alluded to and explained as in part the results of the taste of and choices made by the artists themselves. Notwithstanding these differences, there was clearly a current of patronage in the monastery which favoured the production of such books. No other house in England in the I2th century can boast pictorial narrative of anything like this quantity. We return, therefore, to the question of function. The evidence that great bibles were used for reading in monastic refectories is relatively slight, but is better than the evidence that they were used for anything else. 13

r82

THE ARTISTRY OF THE BURY BIBLE

Supposing that the Bury Bible served such a purpose, we may well ask who, apart from the monk who whose se task it was to stand at the lectern, would ever have seen this sumptuous production? The Life of St Edmund appears to be a liturgical book, with offices and music for the feasts of the saint. lts most obvious user would have been the abbey's precentor, but what use would he have had for the long pictorial cyele and historiated initiais? Even more problematic is the status of and audience for the Pembroke College New Testament. lt is usually stated th that at the picture cyele which now prefaces the text in this manuscript was not originally a part of the same book, the two elements being brought together only at a later date. 26 For a number of reasons I doubt this. To begin with, the ruled space for the text is identical with that for the pictures minus their frames; an astonishing coincidence if the two were not intended to go together. Then there is the fact that the pages which carry the prefatory pictures have sewing stations identical with those in the text sections. This means that the two parts have never been bound as parts of separate books. Z? To credit that they were envisaged as independent creations, we would need to believe that, at some later date, a mid-I2th-century New Testament picture cyele and a mid-I2th-century New Testament manuscript of the right size both beca be came me available at Bury and were 'married'. An inscription on fol. 7r states that the manuscript was given 'to St Edmund' by the abbey's sacrist, Reginald de Denham, who was in office in the early 14th century. The implication is th that at the book was not already the property of the monastery. Furthermore, the fact that the script is not like that of other Bury books has encouraged the view that it was made elsewhere. However, we need to remember that the Bible scribe's work occurs nowhere else in the Bury manuscripts, and supplement this in the case of the Pembroke College New Testament with the evidence of the scribal colophon. This names the scribe, William, and asks th that at his name be entered in 'the book of life'. Were he a member of the community for which the book was being made he would automatically be ineluded in the abbey's liber vitae and other intercessory contexts. If this is wh what at his request means, then the colophon should wam us not to expect the book to look like an 'in house' product. On the other hand, it has been pointed out th that at aspects of the prefatory pictures (for example, their frames) fit quite comfortably into a Bury context, and lagree with Michael Kauffmann about the similarity between some of the major initials and those in the Life of St Edmund. If the book was made for local consumption, it is hard to envisage patronage with the taste and wealth to commission such a book if it did not come from within the abbey itself. 28 The broadly liturgical function of the book is implied by an inscription, following the Epistles of James, Peter, J ohn and J ude but preceding the Pauline Epistles, which notes: 'Af 'After ter these epistles let Apocalypse be read immediately, rather than the Pauline epistles which will be read af after ter Christmas, Christmas,.29 .29 Although the script of this entry is late 13th or early qth century, it helpfully implies an institutional context for the manuscript, and again raises the by now familiar question about the audience for the pictorial element. We can see th that at practice at Bury St Edmunds during the second quarter of the 12th century was remarkably consistent. A series of lavishly illuminated books was produced, using specialist scribes, ostensibly for the context of the ceremonial reading of their texts. It is hard to imagine, then, that members of the community, except perhaps for the controlling obedientiary of the office in which they were lodged, would have had the kinds of access to them which would have allowed for sustained contemplation of the images. lt seems to follow that the art within the manuscripts is

T. A. HESLOP

18 3

there to help turn them into treasures rather than to provide intellectual or theological stimulus. 30 It provokes the slightly disturbing thought that art historians are probably paying more attention to these cycles of images now than they ever received in the Middle Ages. It also raises questions about the degree of attention that would have been given by the patrons to the subject matter or the iconography of the pictures. For, unlike the illustrated psalters of the period which were mostly for private contemplation or occasionally, perhaps like the Eadwine Psalter, were monastic community 'reference books' housed in the cloister, there was no great incentive here to choose a didactic message with care. It would have been like delivering a sermon to an empty room. The chances are, then, that the illuminators themselves were generally allowed, perhaps even encouraged, to demonstrate their artistic skills - technically, compositionally and interpretatively - as a contribution to the creation of a treasure. For, in the end, what wh at matters about treasure is not what you do with it, but that you have it. The fact that th at the Bury Bible was, most unusually, singled out by Bury chroniclers for comment surely reinforces that message. lndeed, even without that evidence, the character of the Bible itself, its script, materials and decoration, would be eloquent testimony to the community's desire to own a great work of art.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to the following for permission to reproduce photographs: the Master and Fellows of Corpus Chris Christi ti College, Cambridge, for Corpus Christi MS 2; the Conway Library at the Courtauld Institute of Art for BL MS Royal 6. C. VI; and Bernard Quaritch Ltd for the manuscript fragment from Bury.

REFERENCES See in particular James, Cat. Corpus, I, 3-8; Kauffmann, 'Bury Bibie'; McLachlan, Scriptorium, 195-250; and Thomson, 'The Date of the Bury Bible Reexamined', Viator VI (1975), 51-58. 2. The text from the Gesta Sacristarum which makes it clear th that at this was the prior's commission is given, Ir is perhaps worth stressing that the text says that the sacrist, in this volume, by Gransden (below 245). It Hervey, found the money for writing (my italics) the Bibie, and had it incomparably painted by Master Hugo. In other words, if the syntax is to be taken seriously, it was the writing of the Bible that was perceived to be expensive. However, in the next passage, the link word 'qui' implies th that at it was Hugo who decided to get together special membrane from Scodand, and that must have had substantial financial consequences. None of this demonstrates th that at Hugo was himself paid and that he was therefore a lay artist, nor technically does the tide magister, which by the time of J ocelin of Brakelond's Chronicle could be applied to monks who had followed one of the secular professions before entering the community. 3. The textual components of the Bury Bible are discussed by Don Denny, 'Notes on the Lambeth Bibie', Gesta, XVI, pt 2 (1977), 51-64, but see also the comments of R. M. Thomson, Manuscripts from St Albans Abbey, ro66-I235 (1982), 1,32. On the general question of texts in English Bibles see W. Oakeshott, The Two Winchester Bibles (Oxford 1981); Mary P. Richards, Texts and their Traditions in the Medieval Library of Rochester Cathedral Priory, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, LXXVIII, pt 3 (1988), 61-64; and Dominic Marner, The Bible of Hugh du Puiset: Authority, Appropriation and Invention in the Late Twelfth Century, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of East Anglia 1995, 4 1 -57. 4. In my view English writers af after ter about 1IOO would have used Hibernia if they had wished to indicate Ireland. I take it, therefore, that in Scotiae partibus means in Scodand. 5. The easiest way to judge th that at there is no decline in quality is on the initials where the edge of the illumination exceeds the area of double-thickness vellum, so that one can see the paint surfaces that result 1.

184

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21.

22. 23. 24.

THE ARTISTRY OF THE BURY BIBLE side by side. A good example is the F on fol. I67v, where the lower three-fifths of the upright is painted directly on to the page, while the upper two-fifths is on double thickness. The implication by some recent writers that the illumination was executed on the extra layer of vellum prior to its being pasted down is, of course, wrong. Table I shows which initials are on added vellum and which not (excluding the first gathering there are fourteen of the former against twenty-five of the latter). It will also be noted that double-thickness vellum is used irrespective of whether the underlying page is the hair side or flesh side of the skin. James, Cat. Corpus, followed by McLachlan, Scriptorium, 283. The text on fols 2v/3: 'Cur Paulus apostolus vas electio/nis. Nempe quia vas legis'; fols 3v/4 concerns Job: ' ... vel cautius scrips/erit. Scio .. .'; on fols 4v/5 relates to Esra and Nemiah: ' ... in medulla.! Cern Cernis is me .. .'. The texts on fols 7v/8 and fols 8v/9 are also continuous, at Genesis 2.3 and 4.14 respectively. v For example fols 33,167\ 220 . McLachlan, Scriptorium, 46-54, for a general discussion of Bury initials and 196-97 for the BibIe. Ibid., ill. 60 (pierpont Morgan Library MS 736, fol. 78), particularly the C in the first line and the T in the fifth line of the display capita capitaIs, Is, and ill. 56 (fol. 77), S in line two, T in line five. The incipit above the Jeremiah frontispiece (fol. 245 V ) is McLachlan, Scriptorium, ill. 85. For another instance see fol. I43 v wh where ere the top of the first column contains the work of the auxiliary letterer, the top of the second column the work of the main letterer and between the two is an illustrated initial I by Hugo. The monumental capitals used by the auxiliary letterer are ultimately of Norman origin (compare an associate of the Carilef Bible scribe, in Gullick (as cited in n. 15 below), figs 12 and 13) though the style was well established in England by the I120S; see for example the Westminster titulus on the Mortuary Roll of Abbot Vitalis of Savigny (most acces accessi sibIe bIe in T. S. R. Boase, English Art, IIOO-I2I6 (Oxford 1967), fig. 7). The lack in earl earlier ier Bury manuscripts of a combination of deliberate variations of angular and round forms (C, E, S) of litteri inscripti and ligatured letters, and of combined triple and single point punctuation, argues a desire to harmonize the work of the main and auxiliary letterers. The auxiliary letterer who is otherwise so well aware of Bury tradition may have been adapting his lettering to that of his colleague on the Bible project from the outset. Bernard Quaritch Ltd, Catalogue 1036, Bookhands of the Middle Ages: medieval manuscript leaves principally from a collection formed in the I9th century (London 1984), item 59. I would like to acknowledge the help of Richard Linenthal at Quaritch in discussing the fragment with me. Compare, for example, the work of the Eadwine Psalter scribes which is concentrated on high status liturgica and biblical texts and the similar situation in the early rrth century. See The Eadwine Psalter: Text Image and Monastic Culture in Twelfth-Century Canterbury, ed. Margaret Gibson, T. A. Heslop and Richard W. Pfaff (London and University Park 1992),22-23, and T. A. Heslop, 'The Production of de luxe manuscripts and the patronage of King Cnut and Queen Emma', Anglo-Saxon England, XIX (1990),151-95 passim. Michael Gullick, 'The Scribe of the Ca Cari rilef lef BibIe: a new look at some late eleventh-century Durham CathedraII manuscripts', in Medieval Book Production: Assessing the Evidence, ed. Linda Brownrigg (Los Cathedra Altos Hills, California 1990), 6I-83. The best colour reproduction of the Bury Bible is to be found in C. R. Dodwell, The Pictorial Arts of the West, 800-I200 (New Haven and London 1993), ill. 347. Kauffmann, 'Bury BibIe', 72-73, gives a good account of Job iconography. For the Rochester Moralia see Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, no. 15. Walter Cahn, Romanesque Bible Illumination (Ithaca 1982), pI. 154. The two images are reproduced and briefly compared by Kauffmann, 'Bury BibIe', 70, pIs 17, 29b. Michael Camille, Image on the Edge (London I992), 20 and n. 15 citing Stith Thompson, MotifIndex of Folk Literature, F66 665. 5. I. For example St Edmund giving Alms to the Poor, or the ParabIe of the Wedding Guest, Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, ills 80 and 94 respectively, not to mention the violent scenes of martyrdom and the Passion in the two manuscripts manifest, a psychological engagement with the realities of suffering which Hugo seems deliberately to eschew. On the subject in general R. W. Scheller, Exemplum. Model-Book Drawings and the Practice of Artistic Transmission in the Middle Ages (Amsterdam 1995), esp. 48-52. F. Dressler, F. Mutterich, H. Beumann, Das Evangeliar Ottos III Cim 4453 der Bayerischen Staatsbiblio­ thek Munchen, Faksimile und Textband (Frankfurt 1977-78), and see also H. Mayr-Harting, Ottonian Book Illumination, an historical study, 2 vols (London 1991), I, chapter 4. McLachlan, Scriptorium, ills 39-42, depicting various episodes in the discovery of St Edmund's body by his followers. In these scenes the emotions and poses of the figures in the crowd parallel each other closely as though to emphasize the response by means of repetition. The same is true in Cam Cambridge bridge Pembroke

T. A. HESLOP

18 5

College MS 120, e.g. ibid., ills 67-70. Hugo himself also occasionally uses this mode, as in the children of

Job in P!. XLIVA.

25. Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, nos 26 (Cuthbert) and 30 (Prudentius). 26. For example McLachlan, Scriptorium, 120, 313, and Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, 74-75, both apparently influenced by James, Cat. Pembroke, II7-25. 27. The written space in the manuscript is about 187 x 303 mm, the picture widths range from 187 to 190 mm and the heights from 301 to 307 mmo The exception is fo!' 6"' which is rather larger. The sewing stations throughout text and picture gatherings, measuring from the base of the spine from station to station, are at 30-33 mm, 75-77 mm, 158-60 mm, 242-47 mm, 325-31 mm, and 368-77 mm (measured from the top down, the margin of variance would increase in the opposite direction). The evidence that this is the original sewing pattern depends not just on the fact that these are the only sewing holes, but that the membrane was still fresh enough wh when en it was f1rst sewn for the threads to have left clear, intended impressions in the centre fold of each quire. As the skins age and lose their softness they become very resistant to this kind of pressure. I55 v and 174 with 28. Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, 75, compares the initials of Pembroke fols 155 Morgan fols 60 and 153. As regards the Bury provenance of the whole book, it is worth noting th that at the front pastedown is part of the f1rst gathering of the manuscript, originally of four leaves, and carries a rudimentary map on which 'beri' features as the only place in 'anglia'. Bury also occurs f1rst among the pIaces pI aces listed in England in the corner of the same sheet. M. R. James, Cat. Pembroke, considered the I4th century, but this needs re-examining since, apart from anything else, the writing is the script to be 14th work of two hands, the earl earlier ier of which was responsible for 'anglia' and 'beri'. 29. 'Post has epistolas legatur immediate apocalypsis et non epistolae pauli quia post natale legentur.' 30. Ir is worth noting th that at the library books made for Bury are a very plain collection, both when compared with the illustrated ceremonial books we have been considering, and when placed alongside the library books of other Benedictine monasteries in England such as St Albans, Durham or Christ Church, Canterbury.

The Provision of Books for Bury St Edmunds

Abbey in the IIth and 12th Centuries

By Teresa Webber Surviving manuscripts suggest that for much of the IIth century the monks of Bury had been able to rely largeLy upon imports to supply themselves with the books they required. But from the end of the IIth century a much greater demand for books (and, in particular, copies of patristic texts) led Bury, like sa many other religious houses in England and elsewhere eLsewhere on the Continent, to undertake an extensive programme of baak production. But Bury was unusual in maintaining an active scriptorium weIL into the second half of the I2th century. This was possible not only because of the continued presence of competent scribes but also because of the availability at Bury of exemplars of glossed books of Bibie, texts which were becoming desiderata for aLL major religious houses from the mid I2th century onwards. Whilst many houses appear to have relied upon gifts or imports of such texts, Bury was able to gain access to exemplars to enable copies to be made within its own scriptorium. The continuity of book production at Bury for over half a century is evident in the degree of uniformity in handwriting and other aspects of the presentation of texts achieved in the Bury books. lt is also a witness to the inteLLectual interests and continental contacts of the abbots and monks of Bury throughout the late IIth and I2th centuries. The century af after ter the Norman Conquest has been described as the greatest in the history of monastic book production in England. 1 It was an outstanding period, both for the sheer number of books produced and for the quality of their script and decoration. Extensive scribal activity was not confined to just a few large centres, such as the cathedral priori priories es at Canterbury and Durham, but can be shown to have been undertaken at numerous religious houses both large and small. For Bury St Edmunds, too, the 12th century was its most prolific period of book production, and at least two of the books produced there are among the most notabie illuminated English manuscripts of the period: the illustrated life and miracles of St Edmund (now New York, Pierpont Morgan Library MS M 736) and the Bury Bible (now Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 2).2 It is worth stressing the exceptional character of monastic book production in England (and indeed e1sewhere on the Continent) in the 12th century, especially when one sets it in the context of earl earlier ier medieval book production. The large number of monastic scriptoria that were active during this period came into being largely in response to a new religious and intellectual c1imate (sometimes termed the 'I2th­ century renaissance') which brought with it the need for much larger collections of books than had previously been required by religious houses. We should not, therefore, assume that an active scriptorium (in the sense of two or more scribes working in collaboration to produce books on a reasonably regular basis) was a normal and continuous part of a monastic community throughout the Middle Ages, nor that every community would necessarily produce for itself all or even most of the books it required to fulfil its scholarly and religious duties. A comparison of the books acquired by the monks of Bury St Edmunds in the Inh century with those of the 12th provides a useful demonstration of this point, and of the direct bearing that changing needs and

TERESA WE BB ER

187

circumstances had on the manner of book provision of a monastic house during the Middle Ages. For, although there is clear evidence of a scriptorium at Bury in the 12th century, methods of acquisition other than home-production seem to have been the norm during the lItho THE I ITH CENTURY

The 12th-century Bury library catalog catalogue/ ue/ inscriptions in books recording Bury ownership, and palaeographical evidence, have enabled schol scholars ars to identify weU over sixty surviving manuscripts as the acquisitions of the monks of Bury from the time of their foundation until the second half of the 12th century.4 Of these, eighteen are databIe data bIe from their handwriting to before the final decade or so of the luh century century.5 .5 In appearance, they are a very misceUaneous bunch. Most of them are databIe to the 9th and loth centuries, and hence must have been acquired from elsewhere since they pre­ date Bury's foundation, and a large proportion are continental in origin. Ir is weU nigh impossible to establish a firm Bury origin even for those few books which are in the characteristically English style of handwriting of the luh century; they certainly form too small a sample to provide evidence of anything like refular manuscript production from which one could argue the presence of a scriptorium. The exquisitely written and illustrated luh-century Psalter now in the Vatican may, like others of these Bury manuscripts who whose se origins are uncertain, have been made at Bury, but we possess no evidence to demonstrate that it was, stilliess th that at it was produced as part of regular scribal activity such as was to take place there from the end of the luh century. In fact, there are few monastic or cathedral centres in luh-century England which can be demonstrated to have possessed a scriptorium (in the sen sense se outlined above) at any time before the final decades of the century? This state of affairs is best explained by the fact that the needs of most early medieval religious houses were not such as would require the kind of sustained book production over a number of years which is a pre-condition for an organized scriptorium. Late Anglo-Saxon book collections, in common with many formed on the Continent in the loth and early luh centuries, seem generally to have been quite small' and were directed towards a rather limited range of liturgical, devotional, scholarly and pastoral activities. 8 This picture began gradually to change during the course of the I uh century. In England, as on the Continent, increasing numbers of abbots, bishops and their communities developed scholarly and other interests which required reference collec­ tions ti ons of books on a much grander scale than had existed since the Carolingian period. In particular, a more intellectual interest in biblical schol scholars arship hip and theology depended upon the ready availability of thorough collections of the works of the Fathers of the early Church, such as Augustine, Jerome, Gregory and Ambrose, and those of early medieval biblical scholars such as Bede. At several centres on the Continent, in particular in northern France and the Low Countries, scholars had access to copies of the Fathers which had been made during the Carolingian renaissance, and scribes set about using these 9th-century books as exemplars to make fresh copies. But in England, the introduction of these new scholarly interests around the middle of the luh century (and especially af after ter the Norman Conquest) did not result immediately in similarly extensive scribal activity and the consequent establishment of scriptoria. Certain difficulties stood in the way. Most important, many of the patristic texts now considered essential were not yet present in

188

THE PROVISION OF BOOKS

England, or were not readily acces accessi sibie bie for copying: exemplars had first to be imported from the Continent. Ta begin with, at least, it may have been easier to acquire texts ready-made from the Continent, rather than going to the effort of borrowing an exemplar from abroad, getting a scribe or scribes to copy it, and remembering to return the exemplar to its owner. 9 We find evidence bath of the new interest in biblical scholarship and patristic writing and of the need to cast abroad in order to acquire the relevant texts, in the books coming ming to England acquired for Bury during the abbacy of Baldwin (1065-97/8). Befare co in the 1050S, Baldwin had been a monk at the monastery of St-Denis in Paris, and there is evidence that he continued to maintain contact with St-Denis, using it to his advantage to get hold of books for his English abbey. It is very likely that Cambridge, Pembroke College MS 83, a 9th-century continental copy of Bede's commentary on Luke, was acquired in this way, as it has been identified as a product of the 9th-century Cambridge, bridge, Pembroke College MSS 23 and 24 were also scriptorium at St-Denis. lO Cam probably acquired from the same source: they comprise a two-volume set of ho homi milies lies which includes a serman for the anniversary of the viewing of the relics of St Dionysius c. 1050, at St-Denis. l l The style of handwriting of the two volumes also suggests aParis origin, since it has similarities with the handwriting of surviving manuscripts of this period from St-Germain-des-Prés. 12 One might speculate that same of the other 9th­ century manuscripts which have a northern French origin and a Bury provenance, may have arrived during the abbacy of Baldwin by this or similar routes. One such possibility is Cambridge, Pembroke College MS 91, a 9th-century northern French copy of Jerome's homilies on the Psalms. Such evidence has important implications for our understanding of intellectual developments in IIth-century England. It is usually assumed that the new interest in biblical scholarship and patristic texts arrived in England as a result of the Norman Conquest, at the initiative of Norman or Norman-trained prelates such as Lanfranc, and that copies of patristic texts were imported from Norman centres. But the Bury books acquired during the IIth century (perhaps through the initiative of Baldwin) were re not indicate that England's intellectual and cultural contacts with the Continent we confined to Normandy. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE BUR Y SCRIPTORIUM

It is with a smallish group of books data databie bie to around the last decade of the IIth century and the beginning of the 12th th that at we have our first evidence of scribal activity on any real scale at Bury. The hands of a small number of scribes working in collaboration have been identified in books and documents associated with Bury Bury.13 .13 Among this group of books are a copy of the Gospels (Cambridge, St John's College MS 73) and a beautifully illustrated her herbal bal (Bodl. Lib. MS Bodley 130) 130)/4 /4 but they also include patristic texts such as Augustine's commentary on St John's Gospel (Bodl. Lib. MS e Mus. 6) and two volumes of his Enarrationes in Psalmos (Bodl. Lib. MSS e Mus. 7 and 8: on pss. 50-150). These books provide evidence that English communities were beginning to get over their initial difficulty in obtaining exemplars. By the turn of the IIth and 12th centuries, a small number of centres in England had acquired copies of texts hitherto unavailable in England, and seem to have been prepared to laan them out as exemplars to those monasteries and cathedrals with which they had friendly contact. 1S It now became pos possi sibie bie (and perhaps more convenient) for a monastery or cathedral to borrow an exemplar from another English house, and

TERESA WEBBER

18 9

produce a copy for itself. Some of the continental books acquired by Bury, perhaps during Baldwin's abbacy, were used elsewhere in England as exemplars: Cambridge, Pembroke College MS 81, a 9th-century continental manuscript which includes Bede's commentary on Habbakuk, is the manuscript from which several English copies from the first half of the I2th century were made, either directly or at one or more stages removed. 16 The first half of the I2th century witnessed an unprecedented de demand mand for books throughout England, a demand which is evident not only in the numbers of books that at still survive but also in records of some abbeys going so far as to employ produced th 'professional' scribes, as occurred at Abingdon and St Albans. 17 We possess little evidence of the employment of professional scribes at Bury during the first half of the I2th century, but the Bury manuscripts themselves provide ample evidence that book production did take place there on a fairly regular basis from the end of the Irrh century until well into the second half of the I2th, involving the collaboration of several scribes. BaaK PROVISION IN THE

12 TH

CENTURY

Ir is possible to demonstrate, using the evidence of scribal and artistic collaboration, that al almost most all of the forty or so I2th-century manuscripts listed in the Bury library cataloiue of the second half of the I2th century which still survive were produced at Bury.1 Bury. 1 Just a tiny handful can be shown to have been produced outside the Bury scriptorium. 19 Ir is likely that book production did not proceed at the same rate throughout the fifty to sixty years; there seem to have been three periods when scribal activity was particularly intense. The first of these more intense phases of production occurred some time during the IlIOS and early Il20S, when scribal activity seems to have been led by the scribe who was responsible for copying most of the text of the Pierpont Morgan illustrated Life of St Edmund (McLachlan's scribe A). A).20 20 His hand is ilIustrated in PI. XLVB. He copied all or parts of four more Bury manuscripts: Cambridge, Pembroke College MSS 12 and 15; Cambridge, Trinity College MS R.7.28, and Oxford, Bodl. Lib. MS e Mus. Il2. Another scribe (McLachlan's sc scri ribe be C) took the lead in a second phase of activity, perhaps overlapping with the first. This scribe produced all or parts of five surviving books: Cambridge, Pembroke College MSS 42 and 95; Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University, Houghton Library MS W. K. Richardson 26; London, Lambeth Palace MS 67, and Oxford, Bodl. Lib. MS e Mus. 9. 21 For a specimen of his handwriting, see PI. XLVI. Although scribe C collaborated with some of scribe A's associates, his hand does not occur in any of the books in which scribe A's hand appears, and hence he may have begun work af after ter scribe A had ceased his activity. Unfortunately scribe C produced no manuscripts which are close!y databie, but the style of his handwriting suggests that he was active sometime during the second quarter of the I2th century. The primary concern during these first two phases of activity was the copying of patristic texts such as the bi biblical blical commentaries of J erome and Gregory, and treatises of Augustine and Ambrose. 22 A third phase of activity, beginning perhaps in the Il4os, was stimulated by new bibliographic requirements: the acquisition of a set of glossed books of the Bibie. Neither the format of biblical text written in a centra I column with the accompanying gloss (commentary) accommodated in the margins, nor the substance of the glosses was new in the mid I2th century, but it was only from around this time th that at exegesis on

THE PROVISION OF BOOKS

19°

almast all of the ba baaks aks of the Bible was made readily accessible in this form. 23 From the 1140S until at least the II70S numerous volumes of individual books of the Bible or groups of two or more books, each with its accompanying gloss, were acquired as toaIs Is by schol scholars ars and communities across Europe. Bury was na essenti essen tial al reference toa exception, and was, indeed, one of the first centres in England to acquire substantial numbers of such books (for an example, see PI. XLVII) XLVII).24 .24 Many religious communities throughout Europe acquired their copies of such volumes through donation; aften new that at they had acquired whilst students at Paris, the recruits brought copies with them th principal centre for biblical study and for the production of glossed books of the Bible in the mid 12th century.25 Almast all of the Bury glossed books, however, were produced by Bury scribes, and the patterns of collaboration between the scribes indicate that they were working in situ at Bury.26 Once again, Bury St Edmunds seems to have cantacts acts with continental been blessed, as it had been under Baldwin, with excellent cant centres, which, in this instance, enabled the community to borrow books to use as exemplars. BUR Y BOOKS OF THE

12 TH

CENTURY AND THEIR HANDWRITING

Although one can identify troughs and peaks in manuscript product production ion at Bury during the 12th century, the books themselves reveal signs of continuity in the organization of scribal activity throughout much of this periad. The copies of patristic and medieval biblical commentaries and theological treatises produced at Bury from the late 1uh 1nh century onwards display an impressive degree of uniformity in certain practices of baak production. For example: all are ruled in graphite, and generally have ruling not only for the lines of text, but also for a running title which was divided across the double-opening. PI. XLVB, for example (from a copy of Claudius Taurinensis, commentary on Matthew, copied by scribe A), illustrates the right-hand page of an opening, and displays the second half of the running title 'PRIMUS' (the left-hand page reads 'LIBER'). PI. XLVI illustrates another example, from a copy of Origen's homilies on the baak of Judges produced by scribe C. (The ruling is a little more vi visi sibIe bIe in this example.) Today running titles from part of the normal apparatus of any baak, but they are not comman in ba baaks aks produced in the first half of the 12th century. Bury is the one centre of manuscript production in England which, during this peri periad, ad, consistently ruled for running titles in its copies of biblical commentaries and theological and doctrinal treatises. 27 There is also a certain degree of homogeneity in much of the script of the Bury manuscripts. Ir is not sa distinctive that one could recognize a Bury manuscript solely on the basis of its script, but there is certainly a marked similarity not only in the hands of different Bury scribes at work at the same time but als 0 between the handwriting employed in the mid 12th century and later, and that of earlier decades. The earliest products of the Bury scriptorium, which date from the last decade or sa of the 1uh 1nh century, are all in the rounded minuscule which is characteristic of English handwriting of the 1uh 1nh century. century.28 28 They display little of the influence of the more angular northern-western French handwriting that was adopted af after ter the Norman Conquest at same English centres, such as Christ Church, Canterbury, Durham, and Rochester. 29 PI. XLVA illustrates a typical example from Bury: the letters formed with curved strokes (such as c and 0) are nicely rounded (see, for in instance, stance, line 4 'docentis'); the tops of ascenders of letters such as bare thickened to farm flat- (or flattish) topped wedges (line I 'parentibus'); the ampersand sits handsomely upright, and initialletters

TERESA WEBBER

I9 I

are 'drawn' rather than being written (like minuscule letters) with single strokes (for example, line 5 'Ex', and line 7 'Si'). This style formed the basis of the script employed at Bury over the next fifty or so years. The hand of scribe A, for example, who was active in the second and third decades of the 12th century, displays many of the features typical of handwriting at Bury at the end of the Irrh century (see PI. XLVB). The writing is still rounded and reasonably square in its proportions; some ascenders are still finished with a flattened wedge (for example, column a, line I, the I of 'lucas'); the ampersand is well-formed (column b, line 2), and the 'drawn' initials stand out clearly from the rest of the writing (for example, column b, line I, 'Non') 'Non').30 .30 At Bury, as elsewhere in northern Europe, the proportions of the letter-forms changed during the 12th century, be beco coming ming less rounded and more rectangular, but the handwriting of several of the scribes active during the second quarter of the 12th century and later retained many of the other elements th that at characterize earlier Bury manuscripts. Scribe C, for example, continued to employ the flat-topped ascenders (PI. XLVI, column b, line 1,1 of 'male', for example) and 'drawn' initia initiaIs Is (column a, line 3 'Et' and line 4 'Audi'). The cultivation of this style of handwriting at Bury was probably not due to deliberate attempts at uniformity, but occurred as the inevitable consequence of the training of scribes over several decades at the same place. When scribes who wrote (to our eyes) rather different styles of handwriting, collaborated in the production of the same book alongside scribes who wrote the 'Bury' style, they did not alter their handwriting to conform. For example, a scribe who wrote in the highly distinctive angular style of script which had evolved at Christ Church, Canterbury, did not modify his hand when he collaborated in the production of one of the Bury glossed books (Cambridge, Pembroke College MS 52: Numbers glossed). This produces a striking juxtaposition of different styles of handwriting on fols 4v-12, where the biblical text which occupies the centra centraII column is written in the 'spiky' 'Christ Church' style, whilst the marginal and interlinear gloss is in the hand of a more typically 'Bury' scribe. CONCLUSION

I observed at the beginning that the abbey of Bury St Edmunds was just one of many religious houses in England for which there is evidence of an active scriptorium in the 12th century. It was, however, unusual in the length of time over which its scriptorium was active in supplying the community with the books it required - from the end of the IIth century until at least the middle (and probably the end) of the 12th century. By contrast, at Salisbury Cathedral, one of the most energetically active centres of manuscript production in the late Irrh and early 12th centuries, the scriptorium seems to have run out of steam in the I 120S: few manuscripts were produced at Salisbury af after ter that th at date. At other centres too, such as Christ Church, Canterbury, intensive manuscript production seems to have waned af after ter the 1I20S or II 30S. The impressive longevity of the Bury scriptorium was al almost most undoubtedly due to its ability to acquire exemplars of glossed books of the Bible perhaps as early as the 1140s. In some previous studies of Bury manuscripts there has been an emphasis upon the abbacy of Anselm (1121-48), and the possible role of Anselm himself. I would spread the credit rather wider, drawing attention to the evidence of continuity of book production from the Jatter years of the abbacy of Baldwin, at the end of the Irrh century, until the mid 12th century and beyond. Ir is this very continuity of book

192

THE PROVISION OF BOOKS

production which is, I would argue, the special characteristic of the manuscripts and manuscript provision at Bury St Edmunds.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to the Master and Fellows of Pembroke College, Cam bridge, for permis permissIOn sIOn to reproduce plates from Pembroke College MSS 12,24,52 and 95 (below pis XLV A-XLVII).

REFERENCES 1. Ker, English Manuscripts, p. 1. 2. Kauffmann, Romanesque Manuscripts, nos 34 and 56, and pIs 79-83, 90, 148-53. Also above, Heslop, 'Artistry', 173-85. 3. Sharpe, Shorter Catalogues, 52-87. 4. For a detailed study of the contents of these manuscripts, see Thomson, 'Library' Speculum, 617-45. For their decoration, see McLachlan, Scriptorium. For some of the Cam bridge, Pembroke College MSS discussed in the present article see also below, Gransden, 'Exhibition Catalogue', 225-30, 252-57 and pIs. 5. Cambridge, Pembroke College MSS 17,23,24,41, 81, 83, 88,91, 108; BL MSS Add. 24199 (fols 2-38V), CottonJulius E VII, Cotton Tiberius B Il (fols 1-86 I-86V), Harley 76; Lambeth Palace MS 218 (fols 131-208V); I3I-208V); V); Bodleian Library MS Rawl. C. 697; London, College of Arms MS Arundel 30 (fols 5-10v; 5-IOv; 208-8 V

Oxford, Corpus Christi College MS 197; Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica MS Reg. lat. 12. In addition,

fragments of two 10th-century Ioth-century lliturgical iturgical books survive as end-leaves in a 13th-century I3th-century Bury manuscript (Cambridge, Pembroke College MS 46 (fols A, B, 82-83). Bodleian Library MS Auct. D.2.14 D.2.I4 mayalso have been at Bury in the late 1Ith IIth and 12th I2th centuries. An addition to an II Ith-century booklist on fol. 173 refers to 'Bealdwuine abb' (Sharpe, Shorter Catalogues, 49-50). 6. Cambridge, Pembroke College MS 41; London, BL MSS Cotton Julius E VII, Cotton Tiberius B Il, Harley 76; Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, MS Reg. lat. 12. At least one of these manuscripts was almost certainly not produced at Bury: Pembroke 41 was written by scribes who have been identified in ma manu nu scripts associated with Christ Church, Canterbury (Bishop, 'Notes, Il', 187). 7. Exeter was one such centre. Several of the books donated by Bishop Leofric to his cathedra I chapter have been shown to have been produced by a group of scribes working in collaboration at Exeter: see E. M. Drage, 'Bishop Leofric and the Exeter Cathedral Chapter (ro50-I072): (1050-1072): A reassessment of the manuscript evidence', unpublished D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University 1978. 8. On the content of Anglo-Saxon book collections, see D. Dumville, 'English Libraries before 1066: use and abuse of the manuscript evidence', Insular Latin Studies: Papers on Latin Texts and Manuscripts of the 550-1066, ed. M. W. Herren (Toronto 1981), 153-78, and H. Gneuss, 'Anglo-Saxon Libraries British Isles: 550-I066, from the Convers ion to the Benedictine Reform', Settimane di studio del Centra italiano di studi suil 'alto medioevo, XXXII (Spoleto 1986), 643-88. 9. Even acquiring a ready-made copy from the Continent could pose problems. See, for example, the difficulties encountered by Lanfranc when he tried to get Anselm (then prior of Bec) to provide him with copies of Ambrose and Jerome: M. T. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec (Oxford 197 8), 179. 10. J. Vezin, 'Les relations entre Saint-Denis et d'autres scriptoria', The Role of the Book in Medieval Culture, ed. P. Ganz, 1 (Turnhout 1986), 38-39. Ir. Discussed by A. Gransden in 'The Composition and Authorship of the De Miraculis Sancti Eadmundi Ir. attributed to "Hermann the Archdeacon"', J. of Medieval Latin, v (1995), 30-31 3°-31 and nno 130-31, and 'The Alleged Incorruption of the Body of St Edmund, King and Martyr', Marryr', Antiquaries Journal, LXXIV (1995),151 and n. 106. ro6. 12. For a preliminary study of some of these manuscripts, see Y. Deslandres, 'Les Manuscripts decorés au xie siècle à Saint-Germain-des-Prés par Ingelard', Scriptorium, IX (1955), 3-16. 13. T. A. M. Bishop identified the hand of one scribe of Cambridge, St John's College MS 73 in a Bury charter (London, BL MS Cotton Aug. Il. 25), and a very similar hand in three other Bury books: Cambridge, University Library MS Ff.2.33, fols i, ii, vi, vii (only fragments survive); Cambridge, Pembroke College MS 25 and Oxford, Bodl. Lib. MS e Mus. 6. See his 'Notes, Il', 185-87, and ibid., '1' , 434. I have also

TERESA TERE SA WEBBER

14. 15.

16. 17.

18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

193

identified one of the scribes of Bodl. e Mus. 6 as the scribe of numerous additions to Oxford, Bodl. Lib. MS Bodley 130. Bodl. Lib. MSS e Mus. 7 and 8 are also written in very similar hands to those which occur in e Mus. 6. On these manuscripts, see also McLachlan, Scriptorium, 35-38. See also below, Gransden, 'Exhibition Catalogue', 266 and pI. LXXXB. This manuscript has been reproduced in facsimile by the Roxburghe Club: ed. R. T. Gunther, The Herbal of Apuleius Barbarus (London 1925). A number of books produced at Rochester, for example, during the first quarter of the 12th century were copied from exemplars borrowed from Christ Church, Canterbury: Ker, English Manuscripts, 14-15. Imported exemplars sometimes circulated among a number of different houses within in England. For examples, see T. Webber, Scribes and Scholars at Salisbury Cathedral (Oxford 1992),45-58. R. M. Thomson, 'The Norman Conquest and English Libraries' in The Role of the Book in Medieval Culture, ed. P. Ganz, 11 (Turnhout 1986), 35 n. 37. For Abbot Faricius's employment of scribes at Abingdon in the early I2th century, see De abbatibus Abbendoniae, ed. J. Stevenson in Chronicon monasterii de Abingdon, 2 vols, (RS, Il, 1858), 11,289, and for the provision for paid scribes made by successive ab abbots bots at St Albans, see R. M. Thomson, Manuscripts from St Albans Abbey 1066-1235, I (Woodbridge 1982), 13,22. No detailed study of the palaeography of all the 12th-century Bury manuscripts has yet been published. For an analysis of the decoration of the manuscripts and for comments on some of the scribes (especially of the earlier I2th-century books), see McLachlan, Scriptorium. Cambridge, Pembroke College MSS 70 and 79, for example, are two glossed books of the Bible which, in their small format and tiny continental handwriting (one scribe is common to both volumes), differ from the other Bury glossed books. lt seems likely th that at both volumes were imported. McLachlan, Scriptorium, 38-43. For the date of the Pierpont Morgan Life and Miracles of St Edmund, see R. M. Thomson, 'Early Romanesque Book-Illustration in England: the dates of the Pierpont Morgan Vitae Sancti Edmundi and the Bury BibIe', Viator, II (1971),212-20, and idem, 'The Date of the Bury Bible Re-examined', Viator, VI (1975), 54. ibid., 43-45. Thomson, 'Library', 627-36. For this and the general remarks which follow, see M. Gibson, 'The Twelfth-Century Glossed BibIe', Studia Patristica, XXIII (Leuven 1989),232-44 (repr. in M. Gibson, 'Artes' and Bible in the Medieval West (Aldershot 1993), which modifies the pioneering study of C. F. R. de Hamel (De Hamel, Glossed Books). A possibly earlier English example of a collection of glossed books is represented by the donation of Alexander, bishop of Lincoln (1123-48) of seven glossed books to his cathedra cathedraII community. Sadly none are known to have survived. See R. M. Thomson, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Lincoln Cathedral Chapter Library (Woodbridge 1989), xv. De Hamel, Glossed Books, IQ-13, 55-60. I hope to publish elsewhere the results of my analysis of the scribes of the Bury glossed books. 1 am grateful to Michael Gullick for discussion of this point. Ker, English Manuscripts, 22-23. ibid., 23-32. These features, taken individually, are, however, not peculiar to Bury scribes: they can be found in different combinations in manuscripts produced elsewhere in England.

Same 12th-Century Bindings from the Library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey: Preliminary Findings By ] ennifer M. Sheppard A preliminary survey of those I2th-century books from Bury St Edmunds Abbey which retain all or part of their medieval binding structures shows that in the (irst half of the century books were bound uniformly. They exhibit characteristics which, though unremarkable for the periad, can together be claimed to constitute a Bury binding. In the second half of the century, binding practices appear to have been less strictly controlled, and bindings on books from this period exhibit a variety of techniques and styles. It appears that chemises were not regularly applied to bindings during the I2th century. Many of the hooks copied in the second half of the century show clear evidence of a later medieval campaign of repair and modernization. Board edges were re-shaped, primary coverings replaced over the spine and chemises added, possibly at the same time as part of the repair. Though na clear evidence has sa far been discovered, it is possible that the repair campaign was undertaken by Henry de Kirkstede during his period as custodian of Bury's books. Books are among the very few survivors of the medieval period which are still used for their original purpose. But while their texts receive continual scrutiny, their bindings often ten overlooked by scholars, even though use of the texts has direct have been too of implications for the survival of the bindings. 1 By bindings I mean structures rather than simply covers, whether decorated or plain. Among the things that interest me about them is the possibility that, when we are more familiar with them, they may reveal localizable evidence of one sort or another. 2 Such information is of interest in its own right, but also for the light it may help to shed on the history of the texts the bindings protect, especially when other evidence of origin or provenance is absent or indecisive. It is certainly useful in identifying bindings, and therefore possibly copies of texts, which do not originate in the monastery to which the book is known to have belonged. The large number of surviving Bury books which retain at least some elements of their medieval binding provide a unique and as yet largely untapped source of knowledge about the development of English medieval bookbinding, although modern rep repairs airs have obscured or obliterated much vital evidence. 3 The findings of a thorough study, which should take into account surviving evidence in the rebound books and fragments as weil as the medieval bindings themselves, would provide an extensive picture of the development of binding practices and book storage in one centre during most of the medieval period, and would constitute a valuable template with which the very much smaller survivals from other monastic houses could be compared. As a start, I have looked at bindings on some of the I2th-century books, to see what they might reveal about book production and book use at Bury St Edmunds. The books considered in this initial survey are, with one exception, in the library of Pembroke College, Cambridge, though other good examples of Bury books in early bindings can be found in other collections. Among these is British Library MS Egerton 3776, discussed here. Most of the surviving bindings o n books copied at Bury in the first half of the I2th century exhibit a marked uniformity uniformity.4 .4 The books concerned are Cambridge, Pembroke College MSS 12, 15, 16, 18 and 42 and London, BL MS Egerton 3776, which all contain

]ENNIFER M . SHEPPARD

195

patristic texts, and Pembroke MSS 47,52 and 74 which are all glossed books. Pembroke MSS 48, 64 and 78, likewise glossed books, have been rebound, but there is evidence to show that their original bindings were probably like those I shall shortly describe describe.. MS 67 ought to belong to this group, but does not, at least as far as its binding is concerned, and I shall consider it later. The books are all large, measuring about 350 by 250 mmo Their endleaf structure is, with one exception, the same: at the front, a separate bifolium or quaternion is sewn in, and at the back of the last leaves of the last quire are used. 5 The last quires are not always quires of eight; at this point in the copying, the scribe selected an appropriate number of bifolia to carry the last section of the text and to provide for endleaves. This is worth pointing out because, like the provision of quire numbers or catchwords, it underlines the fact that the work of a scribe was as involved with the binding as it was with page layout and text articulation. Only when the text occupied the whole of the last regular quire was an extra bifolium sewn in to provide back endleaves. Pastedowns were pasted over the turn-ins of the primary covering of the boards. 6 The books are all, except the smallest, sewn on three split sewing supports of tawed (white) skin about Ia mm wide, rather narrow for the size of the books? A characteristic of all the early books is that the primary sewing stations (that is, the points at which the needie passes through the spinefolds to carry the thread round the sewing supports), Head K

I­

IA. Crypt, from south-east

0­

(1)

ei

0

.D